Call to boycott killer robots

Aug 21, 2012
Call to boycott killer robots
Military robots are making war more likely by lowering the threshold of conflict. Image source: International Committee for Robot Arms Control

(Phys.org) -- Engineers should stop working on killer robots and kick the habit of military funding, a leading Australian applied ethicist has said.

In a paper published in IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Monash University Dr Robert Sparrow, called on engineers to boycott work on military robots such as the controversial ‘Predator’ drone from the United States.

“It is clear that military organisations fund a significant amount of, and perhaps even most of, robotics research today,” Dr Sparrow said.

“Recent technological progress, which has greatly increased the potential for robots to keep soldiers ‘out of harm’s way’ and the perceived success of the US’s Predator and Reaper drones in Afghanistan, has lead to a massive influx of funding from governments all around the world for research on military robotics.”

In his research paper, 'Just Say No' to Drones, Dr Sparrow said military robots are making war more likely by lowering the threshold of conflict.

“Military robots are making it easier for governments to start wars, thinking that they won't incur any casualties on their own side", Dr Sparrow said.

“The ethics of working on military robotics today cannot be entirely divorced from the ethics of the ends to which military robots are used.”

He said the invasion and occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan were immoral.

“If robots are not defending our homelands against foreign invaders or ‘terrorists’ but rather killing people overseas in unjust wars then this raises serious questions about the ethics of building robots for the military in the current period,” Dr Sparrow said.

Dr Sparrow, of the School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies, said he realises individuals, particularly engineers, could pay a high personal price for refusing to work on projects that receive military funding.

“Given how much robotics research is funded by the military, engineering students looking for a job or a place to undertake their doctorates may face a choice between working on a military project or not gaining entry into their desired profession at all,” Dr Sparrow said.

“For this reason, the argument that engineers should ‘just say no’ to military funding is best addressed to the robotics community as a whole, rather than individual engineers.”

Dr Sparrow said he hoped his research will spur discussion within the robotics community as to how it might support those who do refuse funding.

“Hopefully most engineers can agree that we would all be better served if robots were being researched, designed and built to confront some of the urgent social and environmental challenges facing humanity today, rather than to kill or wield political power in foreign lands,” Dr Sparrow said.

Explore further: Co-robots team up with humans

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Versatile robot rascals weigh in for battle

Aug 20, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Defense technology company QinetiQ North America (QNA) has launched a ten-pound tyke of a robot that can operate in hostile military environments, doing reconnaissance before fighters come ...

Wrinkle-traveling Clothbot makes its IEEE debut (w/ Video)

May 19, 2012

(Phys.org) -- As any gathering of scientists working with robots will suggest, attempts toward perfecting techniques and outcomes of grasping and maneuvering are key issues for researchers working on climbing robots. At ...

Robotic technology lowers military risks

Jun 07, 2006

With suicide bombing and improvised explosive devices escalating violence in Iraq, engineers are working to advance robotic technology to counter these deadly military problems.

Recommended for you

Firmer footing for robots with smart walking sticks

Nov 25, 2014

Anyone who has ever watched a humanoid robot move around in the real world—an "unstructured environment," in research parlance—knows how hard it is for a machine to plan complex movements, balance on ...

Knightscope K5 on security patrol roams campus

Nov 24, 2014

A Mountain View, California-based company called Knightscope designs and builds 5-feet, 300-pound security guards called K5, but anyone scanning last week's headlines has already heard about them, with the ...

Robots take over inspection of ballast tanks on ships

Nov 24, 2014

A new robot for inspecting ballast water tanks on board ships is being developed by a Dutch-German partnership including the University of Twente. The robot is able to move independently along rails built ...

User comments : 114

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotAsleep
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2012
Dr. Sparrow has a very flawed view of why wars are started and how they're sustained...
riverside_roborts
3.6 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2012
A ban on military killer robots? If you believe this will ever happen, you probably believe in Santa Claus as well.

The US military is about waging war and killing people. Any improvement to how many people can be killed or how easily the military can kill them is ALWAYS welcomed.

Like it or not military robots are just another weapon, and while there may or may not be money for space exploration, better schools, or finding cures for disease, there is ALWAYS money for new weapons.

Military robot information? robots-and-androids dot com
antialias_physorg
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2012
Engineers should stop working on killer robots and kick the habit of military funding, a leading Australian applied ethicist has said.

We shouldn't boycot them. We should build them and put in as many 'unintentional' back doors and flaws as possible (preferrably ones that will only show up in the field and turn on the side trying to use the robot.)

Only by racking up the cost in materiel destroyed and lives lost on your OWN side will the development in these machines stop.

The first nuclear armed drone that flies straight back home will be the last one ever built. Believe you me.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (15) Aug 21, 2012
We shouldn't boycot them. We should build them and put in as many 'unintentional' back doors and flaws as possible
In another words, scientists are something like robots too. If they can develop a deadly virus, neclear weapon or humanity killing machine, they will develop it without mercy. But surprisingly, if they could develop something usefull, they're still able to ignore cold fusion research for decades. Could you explain it? Which evil is driving the scientific research?
Believe you me.
Sorry, science is not religious cult. You should preach your sick religion somewhere else.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2012
If robots are not defending our homelands against foreign invaders or terrorists but rather killing people overseas in unjust wars then this raises serious questions about the ethics of building robots for the military in the current period


Also raises the question of what is a just war. I'd be interested, though a bit incredulous, to see an objective definition of that.

I can tell you that, with the caveats on their AI ability, one of the only just wars "I" can think of is against machines that are killing people...
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2012
If they can develop a deadly virus or humanity killing machine, they will develop it. But they still able to ignore cold fusion research for decades. Could you explain it?

Can do. Deadly viruses work. Cold fusion doesn't. There's nothing to 'ignore' there. They are 'ignoring' cold fusion exactly as much as they are ignoring perpetuum mobile machines. (and for precisely the same reason). It's junk science.
Sorry, science is not religious cult.

The ones who order this stuff researched/built aren't scientists. They believe in their type of cult (which in this case comes under the guise of "ideology". But when you get right down to it translates to "more money/power for me is good")
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 21, 2012
Can do. Deadly viruses work. Cold fusion doesn't.
Such a lies are just immanent part of your religion. Millions of people already know, you're just intentionally lying. Whole your life philosophy is apparently evil and hostile to progress and human civilization - do you realize it? Probably not. We need to handle the people like you, I mean it seriously.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (38) Aug 21, 2012
"Military robots are making war more likely by lowering the threshold of conflict."

-Cultures which grow beyond the means to support themselves make war INEVITABLE. These cultures are invariably religion-based. Overgrowth is how they prevailed. They are DESIGNED to do this.

And so if war is INEVITABLE, which it IS, then it behooves the west to determine when, where, and how wars will start; and especially, how they will turn out.
The ones who order this stuff researched/built aren't scientists. They believe in their type of cult
If we dont develop superiority in emerging weapons tech then the enemy WILL, and this tech will give them the advantage. If something is POSSIBLE then we have to be the ones to do it FIRST, and best.
...it translates to "more money/power for me is good
What I have said here is all very obvious except to the most starry-eyed and ideologically deaf and dumb. Those people who live at euro-disney that is.

THE ALTERNATIVE TO WINNING IS EXTINCTION.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2012
Whole your life philosophy is apparently evil and hostile to progress and human civilization - do you realize it?

Nope - because the science I did (and the engineering I do now) actually advances medical science. I actually DO stuff that benefits people directly. Using the scientific method.
Stuff you can test.
Stuff you don't need to pay for to take a look at from afar.
Stuff I don't need to be around for to work.
Stuff that has been published and peer reviewed.
Stuff that can actually be bought and has passed rigorous testing to see if it's effective.

And you? Are you helping progress in any way? No. Didn't think so. We need more people who DO stuff instead of people who CLAIM to do stuff.
ValeriaT
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2012
And so if war is INEVITABLE, which it IS
Of course it is inevitable, if the people like you are saying that "continued fossil fuel use is necessary to maintain western influence in the third world". The people who want to rule others obstinately should be head-shotted at public. Do you believe, if Hitler would be handled so in time, the war would be inevitable? It's all about freedom for psychopathic ideas, like your ones.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2012
We need more people who DO stuff instead of people who CLAIM to do stuff.
Apparently your own rule doesn't apply to cold fusion research, where we have way more doubters and negativist twaddlers - than the people, who are really researching it. We need more people who think first before they start to waste the resources of others. Whole your philosophy is a philosophy of social parasite, who gets all money for his activity from others. If you would be forced to pay all your research like Tesla or Faraday, you would optimize your research and money spending into it pretty fast, I can guarantee you.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2012
ValeriaT:

When you make a "for reals" cold fusion machine that actually produces more energy than it takes to operate I promise you I'll buy it.

Until then, if what you say is really true, it doesn't matter how much you say it. Just do it...like Nike...

Unless of course there is an accompanying nefarious "big energy company" or government conspiracy afoot to keep the truth from us which is thwarting the Hero's of cheap energy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (32) Aug 21, 2012
Also raises the question of what is a just war. I'd be interested, though a bit incredulous, to see an objective definition of that.
Just wars are fought to prevent people like this from gaining power:
http://www.youtub...pp_video
http://www.youtub...xzBy5vl8
I can tell you that, with the caveats on their AI ability, one of the only just wars "I" can think of is against machines that are killing people...
Think a little harder. We cannot wait until amadajinedad drops a nuke on us. Right?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2012
Do you believe, if Hitler would be handled so in time, the war would be inevitable?

Do you even read history books on occasion? Like how he got so powerful? And that he didn't succeed until the military industrial complex backed him?
Learn to look past the simple things.

It's all about freedom for psychopathic ideas, like your ones.

Funnily 'my' psychotic ideas work. Yours don't. Reality beats fantasy any day.

Apparently your own rule doesn't apply to cold fusion research,

As has been explained to you before. It was investigated all over the world and found not to work. What is more likely: that it doesn't work or that there is a global conspiracy theory led by people who ACTIVELY search out jobs that pay them less than half as much as they would get in the industry? Think about that for a second. Then tell us all again what you think the motive behind the conspiracy is.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2012
When you make a "for reals" cold fusion machine that actually produces more energy than it takes to operate I promise you I'll buy it
You can buy it already. It costs 1.5 millions of bucks - but it's still TWENTY times lower, than the recent Milner's prize payed for useless research. So - what are you waiting for?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (32) Aug 21, 2012
Do you believe, if Hitler would be handled so in time, the war would be inevitable? It's all about freedom for psychopathic ideas, like your ones.
You speak especially funny when you are agitated.

What do you think would have happened if hitler hadnt invaded russia? Answer - stalin would have invaded germany and the allies would have had no place to land. The only reason we DID land was to keep stalin from taking all of western europe.

As it was the german/russian war of mutual annihilation prevented the west from having to fight a nuclear war against a combined german/russian communist juggernaut.

There were enough excess men of fighting age in eurasia to fuel 2 world wars in only 2 generations. That outrageous propensity for overgrowth and VIOLENCE in a nuclear age was only ended when ABORTION and family planning could be spread throughout the continent. And this was only possible because the religionist cultures which would have resisted it, were destroyed.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2012
Answer - Stalin would have invaded Germany and the allies would have had no place to land
You're funny all the time. Of course, if the Stalin would be head-shotted in the same way, nothing like this would ever happen. The psychopaths simply cannot get their opportunity, that's all. From the same reason the racist ideas are already banned in advance and the developer of psychopatic machines should be jailed as well. After all, if the chemical and biological weapons can be outlawed, why not another weapons, which are just doing killing more comfortable? It's just matter of ethical level of society, how it will handle it.
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2012
Valeria, who has purchased an eCat and actually received one? Have you?

P.S. their news section hasn't been updated since May. You may want to find another fraudulent website that at least puts effort into try to appear legitimate
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (29) Aug 21, 2012
Answer - Stalin would have invaded Germany and the allies would have had no place to land
You're funny all the time. Of course, if the Staling would be head-shotted in the same way, nothing like this would happen. The psychopaths simply cannot get their power, that's all. From the same reason the racist ideas are already banned in advance.
People were starving throughout eurasia in 1910. They were DEMANDING war. Germans were again starving in 1930. TOO MANY PEOPLE had made war inevitable. Everybody was killing everybody simply because there were too many of everyone.

Class struggle was a natural reaction to the inevitable labor glut. Fascism was the inevitable counter-reaction. It did not matter who was in charge. The people who ended up in control, and the regimes they commanded, were Designed to wage war in the most Beneficial of ways.

Peace reigns today throughout northern eurasia whereas the alternative would have been a vast nuclear wasteland.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (27) Aug 21, 2012
Valeria, who has purchased an eCat and actually received one? Have you?

P.S. their news section hasn't been updated since May. You may want to find another fraudulent website that at least puts effort into try to appear legitimate
Rossi should be revealing a lot more within a few weeks:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/rossi-says-publication-release-day-is-september-10th-or-8th/" title="http://http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/rossi-says-publication-release-day-is-september-10th-or-8th/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.e-catw...-or-8th/

-He is communicating on this website, as are other players who are claiming similar progress.
http://www.e-catworld.com/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (28) Aug 21, 2012
Try this:

"For some time Andrea Rossi has been talking about the release of a report providing data about his high temperature E-Cat reactors and which will include validation from third parties. Rossi today has given us a pretty firm idea of when this information will be released although there are two different dates mentioned. Here are two comments from the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

On the 10th of September the report will be published, after the presentation of the same at the 1st Convention of the World Licensees of Leonardo Corporation that will be made in Zurich."
http://www.e-catw...-or-8th/
zz6549
5 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2012
By the same logic we should stop producing armoured vehicles because they reduce the risk posed to soldiers, thus lowering the "threshold of war". And then instead of guided missiles, we should strap people to rockets and let them drive. If we do that, no one will want to use them, right?

Right..and I'm sure will be eager to do exactly the same thing, just so it's all fair. While we're busy making our military as human-intensive as possible, they're busy finding ways to kill us with as little effort as possible.

War is war regardless of how it's fought. Whether it's robots or U-boats, militaries will always want to minimize casualties while maximizing capability. Trying to reverse this trend addresses the symptom without treating the cause. The ultimate goal is peace, and
peace can only be found through rational discourse.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2012
peace can only be found through rational discourse.

Agreed. "Moar gunz" doesn't sound like such a hot plan for peace to me.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2012
By the same logic we should stop producing armoured vehicles because they reduce the risk posed to soldiers, thus lowering the "threshold of war"
It's not logic, but ethics. All we know, the weapons are good only for scaring and killing of people - so why so many people have no problems with military? We all know, that the weapons are just a necessary evil of this contemporary underdeveloped world - so why not to attempt for better world? It's a matter of principle. The same problem I can see with cold fusion: it's apparently a superb thing in all aspects thinkable - so why so many people are so dismissive against it? What they can lose with acceptation of cold fusion? Nope, they just want to remain underdeveloped cave trolls with tribal instincts. I just cannot understand it. Apparently the people who don't remember the war cannot value the piece very much.
Skepticus
3 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2012
He he SkyNet is on the way. After you built killer robots, the next step is design one that can build others better, more efficient, less resource-intensive and green. Then further, let them to solely decide when where and how to wage war..we'll be too "civilized" to do acts of violence and murder by our own hands.
evercurious
5 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2012
The crossbow was banned because of the ease of which it was to have someone point, shoot, and puncture a gentlemans armor.

http://computer.y...gagement
packrat
2 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2012
ECat aside - when they start delivering them to any buyer will be when I finally believe that system works as stated.

I don't see why cold fusion won't work. At the rate science had advanced in the last century we might finally figure out how to do it profitably sometime soon or it might take another 100 years. People can't just say it will never happen. How many people would have believed in the 50's -60's that people could now hold a small computer system (modern smart phone) that is more powerful that anything built in that time in their hand that could do what they are capable of doing now? That's just one example out of at least thousands of new tech we have now. Take that same phone back a couple hundred years and people would have burned you as a witch!
Shootist
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2012
Time to build anti-killer robot robots
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (24) Aug 21, 2012
peace can only be found through rational discourse.

Agreed. "Moar gunz" doesn't sound like such a hot plan for peace to me.
So you agree with the Islamist in the vid, that rational discussion will obviously lead to an Islamist world? You ok with that? You ok with them taking what you have because their children are starving and it's obviously your fault?

Religions drive overgrowth to the point where negotiation is impossible. Peace only makes the eventuality WORSE.
The crossbow was banned because of the ease of which it was to have someone point, shoot, and puncture a gentlemans armor.

http://computer.y...gagement
No it was made obsolete along with armor, by the firearm. Because of the ease of which it was to have someone point and shoot.
ECat aside - when they start delivering them to any buyer will be when I finally believe that system works as stated.
They're supposed to have some kind of agreement with home depot - no lie.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2012
People can't just say it will never happen.
That's right, but the mainstream physicists will not study it anyway - they're already locked in their negativism. The longer they're denying it, the worse is the acceptation of mistake for them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (27) Aug 21, 2012
From your link:

"The invention of the crossbow upset the balance, however, as one small bolt from a crossbow fired by even the least skilled, most common peasant farmer could topple even the mightiest and most gentlemanly knight wearing the heaviest armor. Once toppled to the ground, the knight became immobile and, therefore, an easy kill for a common peasant with a stiletto."

-Right. Then along came the Mongols and taught them what war was all about. This was the same lesson that Athens learned in the Peloponnesian war when, after centuries of arranged wars, the Spartans began to fight dirty.

This was a Lesson that all greeks sorely needed to learn however, as their next enemies, the Persians, would threaten their entire culture. And so this Lesson was delivered at the proper Time and in the proper Manner. Greece would as a result conquer the entire Mediterranean. By Design.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Aug 21, 2012
An even greater Lesson was learned by Alexander. Aristotle taught him, AND his Persian adversaries, that Planned wars could solve mutual problems of Leaders on both sides. Only 50k Macedonians COULD slaughter one million Persians if those Persians were hapless youth marched for days through the desert with no food or water, and made to stand in formation throughout the night on the eve of battle.

Gaugemela was the second such battle. Leaders worked in Concert to defeat their true enemies, the people, whose numbers would swell when times were good, and then turn on whoever was in charge when they inevitably began to starve.

Leaders learned how to concoct religions which would turn this blame onto the infidel. The people could be divided up and compelled to fight each other, to the Benefit of the culture as a whole.

And so Germanic Rus and their counterparts in the east could be set upon each other in a massive war of mutual annihilation in the barren steppes. Leaders had won again.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (26) Aug 21, 2012
"In a paper published in IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Monash University philosopher Dr Robert Sparrow, called on engineers to boycott work on military robots such as the controversial Predator drone from the United States."

-And so it is clear that the hapless, clueless philo who is starved for attention and funding of his own, is not aware that Iran and others are also busy developing drone tech, and have already flown hundreds of missions over Iraq and Afghanistan:
http://tehrantime...ommander

-And I also assume that the hapless starving philo (and antialias_physorg) fully expects them to cease and desist if we would only be magnanimous and trusting enough to do so first.

Because after all islam is the religion of peace.

Hey maybe they will give up their nukes as well. Who knows? Worth a try right AA?
Moebius
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2012
A voice of reason in an intellectual wasteland, he will be ignored. Does it matter with drone strikes that are killing innocents along with militants in probably every strike? Also amazing isn't it that every one kills militants? Or are they not reporting the strikes that just kill non-militants.

As far as causes go, we create the need for military action ourselves by stupid policies. Like staying in Iraq after Saddam was hung, like staying in Afghanistan after the Taliban was beat, like supporting Israel without forcing them to create a Palestinian homeland and giving them back some of their stolen land. On the other hand the precedent for stolen land was set a long time ago in this country, at least we aren't hypocritical about it. Military spending in the US will turn us into another N. Korea if we don't stop before we are broke. Ron Paul is right.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2012
As far as causes go, we create the need for military action ourselves by stupid policies. Like staying in Iraq after Saddam was hung, like staying in Afghanistan after the Taliban was beat, like supporting Israel without forcing them to create a Palestinian homeland and giving them back some of their stolen land.


Just so I'm clear, we create our need for military action. On the one hand by overstaying our "welcome", and on the other hand by FORCING someone not to overstay theirs...

I see some "creative" thinking going on here.

FTR I agree with the first sentence of the second paragraph. I'm not sure you do...

The first step in helping others is getting out of our own way.
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2012
What do you think would have happened if hitler hadnt invaded russia? Answer - stalin would have invaded germany and the allies would have had no place to land. The only reason we DID land was to keep stalin from taking all of western europe.
Actually Stalin didn't spearhead the defensive campaign. Contrary to his public image, he groveled like a coward paralyzed by fright. The Rothschild labor zionist banksters had to being in one of their own to manage the military campaign for two years while Stalin hid in seclusion. Stalin's skill was ordering people killed, not saving their lives. Like any US-funded puppet dictator.

@Moebius Wow you really swallowed the blue pill. FIY German zionist banksters forged an alliance with Hitler because he didn't have support of his own. They are the ZIon part of the name naZI. The made a pact with Hitler to scare Jews so much that they would migrate to a desert hellhole rather than reside in assimilated Germany.
OckhamsRazor
5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2012
ValeriaT - you seem to swing between some very dangerous totalitarian thinking and completely rabid conspiracy theory. Your idea of having everyone "handled" who may one day be a potential threat to humanity is particularly concerning. Who should have that power? You? Killer robots aren't the problem - people who think like you do are the problem.

Show us irrefutable evidence of cold fusion actually working or take your medication and be quiet. Do you really believe that scientists would deliberately ignore what would be one of the greatest discoveries in history if there was even a shred of evidence that it works? You're fooling yourself.

Or you're just a troll and I fell for it.
NOM
3 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2012
If the mad dwarf puppet who is president of Iran gets nuclear weapons, he will hold the world to ransom.
So when the US sends an armada of drones and balistic missiles to wipe out Iran's air defenses, followed by carpet bombing the factory with bunker busters, I'm all for it.
It would be far easier, quicker, cheaper and less risk to send a single stealth bomber and glass the site with a nuke. But the US is not as evil as some claim it to be.
Shootist
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2012
Otto? I've read some of your 'history'.

It isn't and you're a fruitcake.
OZGuy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2012
Have lived in Australia for 50 years and have never heard of Dr Sparrow before today and suspect that would be the case for the vast majority of the population.
Australia is a large country with a small military. If we were ever invaded we'd need all the killer robots we could get our hands on.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (26) Aug 22, 2012
Otto? I've read some of your 'history'.

It isn't and you're a fruitcake.
I'm sorry but you'll have to be more specific.
Actually Stalin didn't spearhead the defensive campaign. Contrary to his public image, he groveled like a coward paralyzed by fright.
Or more likely he patiently waited until they reached the suburbs of Moscow and then let the Russian winter begin to do it's work, which is exactly how Napoleon was defeated.

Back then there were simply too many Frenchmen, even after all that warring and revolting, and this is the way they were dispatched; not unlike how alexander led his army back through the arabian desert where 90% of them died. Thereafter, peace reigned in europe until the French/Prussian war in 1870.

Then began the long buildup to the next Conflagration. Empires were formed, economies created, ideologies launched, resources secured, and very big Plans made.
mrlewish
not rated yet Aug 22, 2012
I don't know the solution to this dilemma but I do know that one day military drones will be used on us and we won't like it. Imagine 1000 drones blowing up infrastructure, power plants, bridges, etc. Who would be go cry to since we've done the same thing with them.
vlaaing peerd
not rated yet Aug 22, 2012
Forget about ethics, we threw that out of the window ages ago. I'm however surprised US citizens haven't started complaining why 2000US$ per person's tax money is spent on military each year. You could get a lot of Americans out of poverty for that money. I'd go for marketing "getting fincancial priorities straight" rather than discuss how unethical it is to send robots into war.
ClaudiaDroid
not rated yet Aug 22, 2012
@riverside robots: Well in my humble opimion, if americans cant kill, then they are dead or close to be dead.

But lets be honest, on the screens from drones you can impossibly see who or what you kill, for sure you cant indentify a citizen from a terrorist. So it are more blindfolded killers then that it can realy replace the well traind american soldier who can make the diffrence and judge who needs help or who needs to be fighted against. Drones brings death and soldiers brings peace, and that is a huge diffrence.
alfie_null
5 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2012
Several aspects of this bother me:

What is his goal? Does he expect that if one country ceases this activity, the activity will cease? Forever?

Conversely, does he expect that delaying development will solve any problems? Or will it just allow him to push them off to his children.

He is exhorting others to subject themselves to harm.

He's trying to affect a peripheral part of a process, rather than directly attacking the problem. Elect leaders who will stop this activity if you don't like the activity.

As he is an ethicist, I'd expect him to have a more sophisticated understanding of our social fabric.
antialias_physorg
2.4 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2012
Drones brings death and soldiers brings peace, and that is a huge diffrence.

You think looking through a sniper scope, targeting reticule, sattelite map for artillery, radar/sonar image is any differnt than looking through a drone cam? Soldiers bring no more peace than drones do.

The entire history of the military has been about removing the man from the actual death that he's causing so as to eliminate moral/ethical qualms. (The other approach is what is called 'military training': removing these qualms in the first place and replacing them with 'killing on orders')

Soldiers are no better than drones. From the 'high command' point of view they are the same thing: Expendable assets that should kill as much as possible before being killed themselves.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (26) Aug 22, 2012
You think looking through a sniper scope, targeting reticule, sattelite map for artillery, radar/sonar image is any differnt than looking through a drone cam? Soldiers bring no more peace than drones do.
Interesting point. And the religions are designed to produce whole generations of young men who have absolutely nothing else to do, but fight.

We have seen them flooding the streets of middle eastern cities. The Taliban cannot be defeated because it has an endless supply of this fodder. And if this fodder weren't being compelled to throw themselves into the guns of western forces, they would be forming up into vast armies and conquering whole regions, and forming empires. As they always have.

We have killed 2 such armies in this generation; one led by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan, and one on it's way back from Kuwait. But still they come, and Malthus told us why. The killing will NEVER stop until the cultures which produce them, are DESTROYED.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (26) Aug 22, 2012
Forget about ethics, we threw that out of the window ages ago.
It is unethical to lose.
I'm however surprised US citizens haven't started complaining why 2000US$ per person's tax money is spent on military each year.
It is more expensive when you have to fight them after they have invaded.
But lets be honest, on the screens from drones you can impossibly see who or what you kill, for sure you cant indentify a citizen from a terrorist.
It is far easier to make rational decisions when you are not being shot at. And drone operators are much better at discerning the difference between innocents and enemies than suicide bombers are, who usually don't care all that much anyway. 'Let god sort them out.'
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Aug 22, 2012
?? Shotguns are among the last firearms to be restricted because of their limited range and their use in hunting and pest control.
http://en.wikiped...arms_law
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2012
And drone operators are much better at discerning the difference between innocents and enemies than suicide bombers are, who usually don't care all that much anyway. 'Let god sort them out.'

That's not a good line of argument. That X is slightly better than (unarguably bad) Y does not make X a good method.

Example:
Just because a mass murderer does not construct concentration camps does not make him a good man.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (28) Aug 24, 2012
And drone operators are much better at discerning the difference between innocents and enemies than suicide bombers are, who usually don't care all that much anyway. 'Let god sort them out.'

That's not a good line of argument. That X is slightly better than (unarguably bad) Y does not make X a good method.

Example:
Just because a mass murderer does not construct concentration camps does not make him a good man.
Your equating of mass murders with drone operators is silly, as is your implication that drones are not good ways of killing potential suicide bombers because it is just wrong.

Antialias - 'What if they threw a war and nobody came?'

Grow up.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (27) Aug 24, 2012
In today's news

"American missiles targeting suspected militants in Pakistan along the Afghan border killed 18 today, just one day after Pakistani authorities met with a United States diplomat to protest drone strikes in the country.

The US drone campaign has been a serious contributor of tension between the US and Pakistan, and today's attacks were the fourth in one week, reports the Associated Press. All of this week's attacks took place in North Waziristan, an especially restive area where the Pakistani military has yet to conduct any operations against militants."

-Yay. That's 18 fewer people who would want to overthrow pakistans govt, take control of their nukes, and drop them on places like your beloved Frankfurt, because their misery is obviously YOUR fault.

That they can be killed up in the mountains rather than having to do so in the streets, is to pakistans benefit.

That we can do so from a nice air-conditioned control room in Nevada, is to our benefit.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2012
'What if they threw a war and nobody came?'

Grow up.

What if people stopped starting wars (for profit)?
Remember who actually made Osama Bin laden what he was? Who trained him? Who gave him his toys? And who then dropped him in a meatgrinder after he he'd outlived his usefulness?

Do you?

Do you think people who are hopelessly outmanned and outgunned go zo war 'just because they feel like it'?

The day we start pushing the poor around and living off of their backs that day war will come to an end.
PJS
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2012
once the robots learn we are considering banning them, they will rise up and conquer us
Shootist
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2012
Engineers should stop working on killer robots and kick the habit of military funding, a leading Australian applied ethicist has said.

We shouldn't boycot them. We should build them and put in as many 'unintentional' back doors and flaws as possible (preferrably


As if YOU are going to do anything at all.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2012
As if YOU are going to do anything at all.

The funny thing is, I had my chance at that. When I was looking around for a job after finishing my PhD I got called by a company which was 'rather vague' about what they wanted (they only said it had something to do with image processing, segmentation, image recognition...but not in what field or much beyond that. The salary they offered was awesome.).

After looking them up I found they do, among other things, development in military hardware (including aerial 'surveillance' drones) - so I immediately declined.

From then on I made a point of asking employers if they do jobs for the military. Luckily my current employer also has very strict rules against that.

No amount of money is worth working for death merchants.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (26) Aug 24, 2012
No amount of money is worth working for death merchants.
Death merchants - you mean like these?

"WASHINGTON — International nuclear inspectors will soon report that Iran has installed hundreds of new centrifuges in recent months and may also be speeding up production of nuclear fuel while negotiations with the United States and its allies have ground to a near halt, according to diplomats and experts briefed on the findings.

"Almost all of the new equipment is being installed in a deep underground site on a military base near Qum that is considered virtually invulnerable to military attack."

Thank god we have the miltech capable of stopping them eh? Now all we have to do is get over the protests of ideologues like yourself, and DO something before it is too late.

I suppose soon enough terrorists will have to contend with tech like this:
http://www.youtub...ACEr9NmQ

-As the kid looks up he is thinking 'Die western infidel.'
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (26) Aug 24, 2012
Remember who actually made Osama Bin laden what he was? Who trained him? Who gave him his toys? And who then dropped him in a meatgrinder after he he'd outlived his usefulness?
Bin laden provided an invaluable service to both pakistan and the west, as I described. This is why he was protected by the pakistani military. He was Created for the Purpose and he knew it. An Agent.
Do you think people who are hopelessly outmanned and outgunned go zo war 'just because they feel like it'?
Outgunned perhaps but certainly NOT outmanned. As I TOLD you but you seem to be oblivious to, their religionist culture produces an unending stream of hapless, starving, angry youth who have NOTHING else to do but fight the infidel whom they believe is the CAUSE of their woes.

If they were not fighting us they WOULD be fighting pakistan with the intent of gaining control of their nukes and then FIGHTING US more effectively.

And until the culture which CAUSES this is destroyed, it WILL NOT STOP.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2012
Thank god we have the miltech capable of stopping them eh?

And what do you think they'd do with a nuke? (and why, actually, do you think they aren't entitled to one?)
They aren't naive. Don't you be, either.

their religionist culture produces an unending stream of hapless, starving, angry youth

And why exactly is it that they are hapless and starving? Might it be, oh, because we have made sure that their country is a war torn test bed for our toys? Because we buy their drugs by the boatload? Because one nation after another tried to invade them and take them over?

Is there any reason you would react differently than they do if your country would be shafted like that over and over and over and over? No. You would not. So don't give us this 'american brainwash moral BS' - it's ludicrous.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (25) Aug 24, 2012
The day we start pushing the poor around and living off of their backs that day war will come to an end.
The day religions stop pushing their people to reproduce themselves into a state of poverty, then war will end.

The day religions stop telling their people that their children are starving because the people next door do not love god like they do, then war will end.

THE DAY that religions start teaching their people to live within their means as their neighbors do, then WAR WILL END. But as religions are ALL designed to maximize reproduction as a mechanism of conquest, we cannot expect them to do this.
And what do you think they'd do with a nuke? (and why, actually, do you think they aren't entitled to one?) They aren't naive. Don't you be, either.
We love life. They are taught to love death. They WILL use nukes in service to allah because they know they will be rewarded in heaven for it.

Of course theyre stupid.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Aug 24, 2012
And why exactly is it that they are hapless and starving? Might it be, oh, because we have made sure that their country is a war torn test bed for our toys?
Why do you think they have ALWAYS been hapless and starving? Their reproductive rate causes this. They have ALWAYS been fighting, they have NEVER been peaceful, and they are NOW capable of causing destruction far beyond their tribes and their regions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Aug 24, 2012
Is there any reason you would react differently than they do if your country would be shafted like that over and over and over and over? No. You would not. So don't give us this 'american brainwash moral BS' - it's ludicrous.
You dont consider why these regions have always been in turmoil. You think it is ok to wait until this turmoil happens in your own country, and you are ready and eager to blame it on others when it inevitably DOES.

You are unable to accept uncomfortable FACTS when they conflict with your fantasies.

We arent. Angriff ist die beste Verteidigung.
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2012
Looks like it's just about time to turn the comments off on physorg.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (24) Aug 24, 2012
Looks like it's just about time to turn the comments off on physorg.
Wassamatter TM nothing relevant to say as usual? I even dropped a little philosophy for you.

So do you think Nietszche was really trying to describe how the world worked, or instead trying to make the world work the way it needed to? I think he was also an Agent.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Aug 24, 2012
Here you go AA the gentleman at 20:09
'Destroying many cultures' to save the planet:
http://www.youtub...pp_video
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2012
You think it is ok to wait until this turmoil happens in your own country
As Pussy Riot demonstrated Russia has no small number of religious fanatics, although they don't actively infiltrate and subvert other governments (yet). Countries are for people who only speak one language. For me nation states and countries are obsoleted, including the virtual tribal nations of Zion and Mecca. Tribes are a multi-headed snake and not worth the sacrifice.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (24) Aug 24, 2012
As Pussy Riot demonstrated Russia has no small number of religious fanatics, although they don't actively infiltrate and subvert other governments (yet).
You forget all those Chechen Moslems and others in the south? Russians are ALREADY dying. This will only get worse.
Countries are for people who only speak one language.
In the US they speak Spanish. And in most countries they speak English.
For me nation states and countries are obsoleted, including the virtual tribal nations of Zion and Mecca.
Not until they ARE obsoleted. Tribalism persists.
Estevan57
1.7 / 5 (26) Aug 24, 2012
Stand back folks, Otto's goin full Nazi again...
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 24, 2012
As Pussy Riot demonstrated Russia has no small number of religious fanatics, although they don't actively infiltrate and subvert other governments (yet).
You forget all those Chechen Moslems and others in the south? Russians are ALREADY dying. This will only get worse.
No I do not forget them they tried to kidnap an acquaintance of mine in center of Moscow and killed many in Moscow alone. You foreigners do not see them but they come on train in Moscow and walk around town with machine gun and bullet chain like Rambo shopping for fur coat. Stalin was correct about purging religion from society, even if he did it for the wrong reasons, namely leaving a power vacuum for labor zionists and the Vatican to fill.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Aug 24, 2012
Wrong reasons? There were perhaps half a billion fewer people born in Russia and the soviet union because of family planning and ABORTION, which were enabled by the destruction of the pre-Stalinist religionist cultures.

So now there is only trouble in the south. Including the soviet efforts in Afghanistan. 15k dead soviets vs 1M dead religionists. This is Victory. But only temporary as the culture endures.
Estevan57
1.9 / 5 (28) Aug 25, 2012
If the (former) Soviets invaded my country, I would fight back too. Religious or not. (not)

Otto, the other word for religionists is humans.

Its just too easy to be Mr. internet badass and put down all you see. Get out of your moms bedroom and meet some people you jobless, pot smoking, headbanger reject.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (12) Aug 25, 2012
Wrong reasons? There were perhaps half a billion fewer people born in Russia and the soviet union because of family planning and ABORTION
Stalin didn't do it because he was being green and sustainable. He did it because he was a patsy for the banksters and catholics/zionists.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (23) Aug 25, 2012
Otto, the other word for religionists is humans.
There are many other words for them. I think I and those in the links I posted, like maher and hitchens and Dawkins, would call their dogma 'anti-human'.
Its just too easy to be Mr. internet badass and put down all you see. Get out of your moms bedroom and meet some people you jobless, pot smoking, headbanger reject.
And get that brick out of your rheumy old butt, sockpuppet.
Stalin didn't do it because he was being green and sustainable. He did it because he was a patsy for the banksters and catholics/zionists.
There are many reasons he did what he did, some of which I am sure you are not aware of.

The FACT that Eurasian communism 1) destroyed cultures which would have prevented the massive birthrate reduction, and 2) expressly enabled this reduction, FAR OUTWEIGHS any other effects.

Stalin and Mao killed perhaps 70M. They prevented the births of BILLIONS, and the Inevitable chaos and nuclear war.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (23) Aug 25, 2012
With an understanding that this Great Reduction alone was responsible for saving humanity from nuclear annihilation, we can begin to speculate that it may have been the Reason that these communist martial law regimes were Installed.

Indeed they PREVENTED war even as we were continuously told that they threatened it. And the competition generated unbelievable advances in exactly the kinds of technology needed to colonize the solar system. AND this Controlled competition among the Great Powers enabled the complete conquest and domination of the entire planet.

THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED without the exact sociopolitical Configuration produced by the world wars and the ideologies Created to wage them. They saved a world on the brink of self-destruction; and they gave humanity a future.

I submit that none of this happened by chance. It was Planned and the Results predetermined because it absolutely had to be. Because the only alternative was extinction.
Estevan57
1.5 / 5 (23) Aug 25, 2012
I submit that none of this happened by chance. It was Planned and the Results predetermined because it absolutely had to be. Because the only alternative was extinction.
- Otto

Submission denied, your crackpipe overfloweth.
You're Sounding more pro Nazi every Day Otto.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (24) Aug 25, 2012
- Otto

Submission denied, your crackpipe overfloweth.
You're Sounding more pro Nazi every Day Otto.
You know, esai, I notice you have a team of sockpuppets desperately uprating you, some of which have been downrating poor otto for some time now.
Go ducks!
-Said estevan some time ago. Pirouette hailed from north florida didnt she? And you were so quick to claim that youre dear pussycat had not been banned when in fact he/she/it was definitely banned, for posting gay porn links like the morally bankrupt imbecile she/you/they have proven themselves to be.

So what can we conclude from all of this? Are we to assume that we are dealing with one lone and bitter paraplegic in a darkened room who has become quite deft at typing with stylus and tongue?

Or some more mundane sort of idiot? Either way you provide an illuminating glimpse into an obviously fractured personality. Fractured, depraved, and bitter that you were born without the minimum intellect required to relate. So sad.
Estevan57
1.5 / 5 (23) Aug 25, 2012
Wow, you sure got that wrong.

No team of sockpuppets. Got paranoia? If I say you're a crackpot and people agree it is their right, not any whim or machination of mine. Sockpuppets are your game, Otto.

Go Ducks - Oregon Ducks - College football? University of Oregon. Originator of article? Outside world Otto?

No affiliation with Pussycat at all. Or P/sd/rt/pr/espn/ or others.

I type from my business office.

I don't give a crap for your good opinion. Your knowledge of geopolitics and religion could fit into a thimble.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (24) Aug 25, 2012
No team of sockpuppets. Got paranoia? If I say you're a crackpot and people agree it is their right, not any whim or machination of mine. Sockpuppets are your game, Otto.
Well lets see...
socialists_fail (pussy)
Ghost_Busters1/2/6 (pussy?)
TheOtherGhost_ofOtto (pussy?)
KissOttosHairyButt_orBeDownvoted (pussy)
Make_A_Hole (pussy)
Troll_MountainHigh (pussy)
Judge_Fudge (pussy)
Minstrel_Cycle (pussy)
-and others.

-All new,, all without comments, all sockpuppets, all upvoting you, most have downvoted me...but not lately. They all seem to be concentrated on restoring your tarnished rating, as they tried with pussy.

Conclusion - youre a liar little man. Or woman.
Estevan57
1.5 / 5 (24) Aug 25, 2012
They are all free to do as they wish. I have No connection with them except for being in the same forum at times. I do like the Minstral Cycle name though, clever.
If I cared about my "tarnished rating" I wouldn't follow you around just to annoy you.
Sockpuppets are YOUR game, Otto. Conclusion : Make up anything you want, it's your game, not mine.
Make me a true devil. Then we can be "The Devil and the Troll". :)
mosahlah
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2012
Military robots are the worst idea since the anti ballistic missle. Why have robots doing what men are perfectly willing to do themselves? What would your average Army Ranger or Marine infantryman be doing if they were not in the military? Were it not for careers in the warrior arts, they would be kicking it around your neighborhood physically abusing some of the very commenters here on this board.
mosahlah
1.8 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
Actually, sarcasm aside, I'm all for military robots. Why send a soldier into a risky situation when you can send a robot. And if I didn't have a robot, I might elect recon-by-fire. And abusing nerds is totally uncool.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2012
Why have robots doing what men are perfectly willing to do themselves?

The major problem is that it lowers the bar for sending in firepower into situations (as drones have already done)

It's just drones that will be lost, right? But on the other side lives are lost.
As long as we have this supremacist attitude of "our lives are worth more than theirs" (as many, even on this site, seem to have) robots and guns are a very dangerous mix.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (25) Aug 26, 2012
it lowers the bar for sending in firepower into situations
The pacifist assumes that combat is optional and that people who willfully engage in it just enjoy killing. Like the Taliban.
As long as we have this supremacist attitude of "our lives are worth more than theirs" (as many, even on this site, seem to have) robots and guns are a very dangerous mix.
As long as we have starry-eyed isolationists who think that our lives are not worth fighting for, and that the CAUSE of all this is not worth addressing, then the problem will persist and the good guys will continue to invent ever more clever ways of treating the symptoms.
As long as we have this supremacist attitude of "our lives are worth more than theirs"
Consider for a moment the courage necessary in using IEDs (or a nuke for that matter) and the desire of those who use them, to preserve their lives in the same manner as we use drones to preserve ours. You may suspect that your perspective is a little asskewed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (26) Aug 26, 2012
It's just drones that will be lost, right? But on the other side lives are lost..."our lives are worth more than theirs"
It's just IEDs that will be lost, right? But on the other side worthless infidels will be sent to hell. Just wait till we get some Syrian WMDs.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2012
The pacifist assumes that combat is optional and that people who willfully engage in it just enjoy killing. Like the Taliban.

They do not. Again: who created them? They didn't exist until they were created by countless invasions

(This also goes for the regime in Iran. If the US and the UK hadn't actually put the islamists into power we wouldn't be in the mess we are.)

lives are not worth fighting for,

Their lives are as much worth fighting for as ours. Because you fail to see this is is why I think you have a supremacist attitude. THIS is the problem we need to adress. Hypocrisy. Bigotry. The attitude that we have the right to tell others what they should do just because we can.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2012
Just wait till we get some Syrian WMDs.

That's just the kind of thing I'm talking about. 'Us' having this sort of shit is OK - 'them' having it is not OK.

For someone who thinks tribal tendencies are the biggest problem in the world you sure are the most tribal person I've ever seen.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (26) Aug 26, 2012
They do not. Again: who created them? They didn't exist until they were created by countless invasions
And you are willfully ignorant of history. The region has ALWAYS been embroiled in turmoil. Warlords even now fight for control of roads and resources. Whenever they are not fighting invaders they are fighting themselves. Tribalism exacerbated by religion.

You haters are so quick to bite the hand that feeds and protects you aren't you?
Their lives are as much worth fighting for as ours.
But their religion tells them our lives are worth nothing, and that theirs are best used in sacrifice to their god.
Because you fail to see this is is why I think you have a supremacist attitude. THIS is the problem we need to adress. Hypocrisy. Bigotry.
You fail to see how your obsolete, SPECIOUS pacifist dogma makes you a hypocrite and a thoughtless bigot. You refuse to consider the evidence of religion-mandated overgrowth which makes our continued involvement MANDATORY.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (25) Aug 26, 2012
What is the existential danger throughout the region? It is the possibility that religion-fueled pop growth will create an irresistible populist groundswell which will overcome secular differences and reform the caliphate. This would be a new Islamist empire stretching from the levant to India.

Why is it everyone can see this but you?

At risk are nukes in pakistan and iran, the WMDs in Syria, and the explosive potential for armed Islamist hordes which would dwarf those available in Russia, Germany, china, and japan at the beginning of the last century. And unlike them, an Islamist empire would have weapons capable of instantly destroying civilization. They would be wielded by people with a dogma which believes that USING these weapons would be the best way of demonstrating their love for their god.

They constantly express these sentiments. They are constantly maneuvering to be able to carry them out. And like chamberlain you think that reasoning and negotiation will prevent this.
SatanLover
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2012
Just wait till we get some Syrian WMDs.

That's just the kind of thing I'm talking about. 'Us' having this sort of shit is OK - 'them' having it is not OK.

For someone who thinks tribal tendencies are the biggest problem in the world you sure are the most tribal person I've ever seen.

i find it funny when jews call other people out for tribalists while the jews are the most bigoted tribe to have ever existed, even within their own tribe discrimination is very apparent.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (25) Aug 26, 2012
the kind of thing I'm talking about. 'Us' having this sort of shit is OK - 'them' having it is not OK.

For someone who thinks tribal tendencies are the biggest problem in the world you sure are the most tribal person I've ever seen.
i find it funny when jews call other people out for tribalists while the jews are the most bigoted tribe to have ever existed, even within their own tribe discrimination is very apparent.
Nothing is as it seems. If you believe history, what is it about the Jews that made them different?

They had a BOOK, which like the ark they could carry with them. This was a monumental invention. Tribalism was made portable.

Jews were perhaps the first but certainly not the last, nor the best. One Tribe rules the world and does so by sending all the other tribes against one another in Creative and Constructive Ways.

You understand that it IS very possible that the Hebrew tribe itself might be as much a myth as the stories in their book, don't you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (25) Aug 26, 2012
Example: Hutu and Tutsi were originally one people. Some were herders and some were farmers. Brits exacerbated this classic division, first described in the book as Cain against Abel. They used the church specifically to do this. Priests were put on trial after the latest horrendous purge for inciting it from the pulpet and radio.

The instant and thorough population reduction brought temporary peace to the region. But, as with Afghanistan, it is still in the throes of religion, still among the fastest-growing populations in their respective region, and as a result still in need of Management.

So we can see how easy it is to divide the people up and set them against one another. And we can also see why this needs to be does and why it has ALWAYS needed to be done. The sahara would reach today all the way to the tip of Africa, if this had not been done in multiple ways throughjout the continent over the last few centuries.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
Jews were perhaps the first but certainly not the last, nor the best. One Tribe rules the world and does so by sending all the other tribes against one another in Creative and Constructive Ways.
I must disagree. Labor zionists and banksters have successfully dominated the world by dominating mindshare. Long ago they realized that they could not control what the gentiles think, but they could control what the gentiles think ABOUT. The banksters in particular were successful in advocating memes that embellished their wealth. For many centuries mercantilism served both the Jew and the labor zionist as an economic and war philosophy respectively. By controlling the press labor zionists are able to start a war now in Syria even while these same 'rebels' are 'Islamic terrorists' in other places and times.

In short labor zionists change memes like a prostitute changes panties. It's about whatever ideology serves the moment. The goyum are hampered by committing to only 1 idea.
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
Andrea Rossi,,,, I really don't think I'd give 1.5 millions to someone who has been thrown in jail for tax fraud and environmental crimes. For something I have to wait for? And don't know when I'll receive it? Before I get to see it work?

You'd probably be better off to answer one of those emails from a Nigerian lawyer who needs your help to sneak $100 millions out of the country.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Aug 26, 2012
I must disagree. Labor zionists and banksters have successfully dominated the world by dominating mindshare.
But Who controls them? Who gave them markets and political systems in which to operate? Who keeps the unstable nature of these markets from collapsing them at the wrong Time, when they would cause unproductive damage, and causes them to occur at the Proper Time, when they create even more Stable and Productive environments?

Tribal greed is inevitable. Progress despite it is not. There is no other explanation for our continued Prosperity and wild success as a species, than the existence of an Authority which we are not aware of.

Priests and philos used to call this divine Providence when it was just too obvious to keep people from being suspicious. People are too full of liberal educations and too distracted by the media and drugs nowadays, to be suspicious.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (23) Aug 26, 2012
Andrea Rossi,,,, I really don't think I'd give 1.5 millions to someone who has been thrown in jail for tax fraud and environmental crimes. For something I have to wait for? And don't know when I'll receive it? Before I get to see it work?
Joseph smith built a great church on less credibility.

Rossi has supposedly made great progress on producing and marketing his reactors:
http://www.e-catworld.com/

-The next few weeks should be significant-
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
But Who controls them? Who gave them markets and political systems in which to operate? Who keeps the unstable nature of these markets from collapsing them at the wrong Time, when they would cause unproductive damage, and causes them to occur at the Proper Time, when they create even more Stable and Productive environments?
Markets are just another war zone. Labor zionists profit from all wars. When economies collapse then it's time for the military wars. Note the invention of new wars: War on drugs. War on terrorism. War on cyberspace. Every war generates debt, which is the ONLY product banks peddle. Notice how the winning nation of a war is obliged to pay the debts of the loser, so the banksters are always paid. Besides the banksters stole all the gold and issued worthless fiat debt note currency, so repayment is only a formality! Then it's time to start more war in Syria and quadruple the size of Israel as portrayed on their coins!
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012

Rossi has supposedly made great progress on producing and marketing his reactors


Marketing? Apparently he is getting someone to "invest". Great progress? Supposedly is the word you chose, and a good choice it is. But the claim is only a claim, there have been no objective demonstrations. Which is the most damning aspect of his claims.

ANYONE, anyone at all,,, who could do what he says, would do every thing he could to show it, demonstrate it and start planing on how he will spend his Nobel Prize money. I certainly would, wouldn't you do too?
DavidW
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2012
Getting the right or wrong side of this issue will have little effect on the thousands of other issues every bit as important. Oh, it is coming and it is coming fast. Nothing less than 100% on spot by everyone will be required. That is the only outcome that can happen where some survive and the future is wide open. Let me point out that it is usually easier, but not always, to get people to the same place when there are less people to work with.

Basically, suffering and death will continue. If everyone does not get on spot 100% it will eventually get very bad.

In my prediction of the future I would say that some of us will make it after we all get on our knees before the truth. Nothing less will do.
DavidW
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
People are going to have to put truth first everywhere. An example would be that every speaker on earth and every screen on earth should be used first to broadcast all preventable unnecessary suffering, BEFORE being used to watch movies, play games, listen to music, etc. It's that serious and it will take that and whole bunch more. Humility before the truth will come one way or another... as the truth is eternal.
Jeddy_Mctedder
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
utnil there is one global government held in place by ultra deep inteliigence networks, there will be no end to inter-nation warfare.

even einstein understood this. the only hope mankind is to have the threat of thermo-nuclear war prevent a full scale world war long enough to discover technologies that allow for the slow yet steady march towards global governance. there will be fits and starts and maybe a step backwards now and again. but you can be sure that advanced progress with TOOLS will help us. TOOLS include computers , robots, drugs, advanced water management , advanced food distribution, telecom, ALL OF IT>
you cannot isolate drones and future autonomous systems for prohibition.

those countries that succeed in doing this are actually just being victimized by lobbyists who represent the interests of foreign corporations that sell this technology to their military. because if the military refuse to purchase it, they will have disadavantages to other militaries and lose;
SatanLover
2.5 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2012
You cant force the entire humanity into union/harmony or under one dictating rule group. you will generate hate and resistance. people have to grow to eachother by understanding the peoples negatives and positives, much like geometry really. the internet was a good tool to bring people together, that is why we are seeing a war on "cyberspace". the growth of unity of humanity would be disastrous for dictators and you would risk a big population growth which these dictators are very well aware of. i just dont agree with these dictators in their methods to solve these issues and neither do millions of people whom are aware of it.
SatanLover
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2012
You cant force the entire humanity into union/harmony or under one dictating rule group.
Nobody wants to force anyone. We just need to ban the killer robot machines in the same way, like we banned many other types of weapons of mass destruction (including the nuclear weapons in most of countries).

nobody is forcing anyone? take a look around you...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2012
Nobody wants to force anyone. We just need to ban the killer robot machines in the same way, like we banned many other types of weapons of mass destruction (including the nuclear weapons in most of countries).

The 'in most countries' should give you a hint how effective such bans are (especially once a nation has already fielded them - which is the case. The US and South Korea already have them in numbers. At least a dozen others have a few operable units).

It's already de-facto technology. And that's the scary part. because a war based overwhelmingly on robot forces will not be pretty (war is never pretty - but such a war will be downright inhuman(e))
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (21) Aug 27, 2012

Rossi has supposedly made great progress on producing and marketing his reactors


Marketing? Apparently he is getting someone to "invest". Great progress? Supposedly is the word you chose, and a good choice it is. But the claim is only a claim, there have been no objective demonstrations. Which is the most damning aspect of his claims.

ANYONE, anyone at all,,, who could do what he says, would do every thing he could to show it, demonstrate it and start planing on how he will spend his Nobel Prize money. I certainly would, wouldn't you do too?
Like I say per the link he is claiming major announcements soon. ANYONE who stood to make as much money on as easily copyable, and as difficult to patent, a tech as he supposedly has, would not be telling anybody anything until his product was on the market and he got his fair return. Obviously.

As it is, former partners are already racing to market their own versions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Aug 27, 2012
It's already de-facto technology. And that's the scary part. because a war based overwhelmingly on robot forces will not be pretty (war is never pretty - but such a war will be downright inhuman(e))
The war you lose is the inhumane war. And for the west, losing to medieval religionists is NOT an option as it would mean extinction. Extinction is inhumane.
The US and South Korea already have them in numbers. At least a dozen others have a few operable units).
Yeah and I see you forgot to mention north Korea, and Iran who has already sent swarms of drones across their borders.

WMDs are also banned but Hussein used gas against Kurds and Assad threatens to use them against anybody. And who knows whether he hasn't already given some to Hezbollah? For safekeeping? Or for use in your beloved Frankfurt?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Aug 27, 2012
Who's to say whether drones loaded with sarin and infectious agents and isotopes aren't sitting in shipping containers on ships off our coasts, waiting to be sent into the hearts of our major cities?

Miltech is INEVITABLE. And so it behooves those who are able, to develop it FIRST and best. This includes of course testing and improvement under actual combat conditions. Because one can never know just how miltech will function in the fog of war, and yet KNOWING is essential if one is going to be able to depend upon it.

And so wars need to be fought, in order to maintain the ability to fight them dependably. Enemies have to be ready and available at the proper time and in the proper place, and it always seems that they are. Funny that.

One can appreciate for instance the value of the ww2 north African campaign, to events in the postwar middle east. Wars needed to be fought and won in the desert, and so mechanized armor had to be proofed to accomplish this dependably. So many Examples
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2012
And for the west, losing to medieval religionists is NOT an option as it would mean extinction.

They're not at war. They're just trying to be left alone from western intervention. (Don't get confused by their rethoric. Rethoric in islam is an entirely different critter than in the west)
And who can blame them? They have been pushed around and subjugated and exploited by western powers for hundreds of years. Waging war on them from our side just adds insult to injury.

We should take care of our own problems first. There is a fanatical/religion issue MUCH closer to home and MUCH more dangerous than any middle east dictatorship could be.

WMDs are also banned but Hussein used gas against Kurds

Funny you should mention that. Know who he got the gas from? And that Hussein was 'our best buddy in the middle east' at the time (and even after that)?

Memory (or history) does not seem to be your strong point.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (23) Aug 27, 2012
They're not at war. They're just trying to be left alone from western intervention.
THAT is BULLSHIT and you know it. In bosnia, in kashmir, in chechnya, anywhere where they are trying to outgrow their neighbors, they are at WAR. Here is a list: http://www.warrio...cts.html -You think it is ok for them to peacefully coexist while their numbers swell and until competition makes conflict inevitable... and then blame it on the indigenes. Like these: http://en.wikiped...violence This is war.
Funny you should mention that. Know who he got the gas from?
They both made it themselves. Very easy to do. Heck, 2 bit religionist fanatics can manufacture sarin to use in brit subways. Why do you feel the need to MAKE STUFF UP?
Memory (or history) does not seem to be your strong point.
Your imagination seems to be yours.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (25) Aug 27, 2012
(Don't get confused by their rethoric. Rethoric in islam is an entirely different critter than in the west)
Many said this about hitlers antisemitic speeches and stalins anti-middle class speeches.

Your enemies dont even have to say a thing.
http://www.irisht...370.html

-Perhaps the party was a little too loud.

http://www.youtub...AYsF9B34

-Perhaps they did not like her perfume.
Estevan57
1.5 / 5 (25) Aug 28, 2012
Judging from your posts, Otto, It seems you would cheer loudly at Hitlers antisemitic speeches. Provided they were at least as virulent as your own.
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2012
Judging from your posts, Otto, It seems you would cheer loudly at Hitlers antisemitic speeches. Provided they were at least as virulent as your own.
Which semites? The zionist bankster class FUNDED Hitler and demonstrated in his parades and formed a collation government with him.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (22) Aug 28, 2012
Otto, It seems you would cheer loudly at Hitlers antisemitic speeches. Provided they were at least as virulent as your own.
Pirouette/Ritchieguy/russkiye/pussy/Obie/jewzrule/dumbass is just peeved because he/she can't post dumbass things without people taking exception to it. Like 'zero growth' means 'zero birth'. How dumb.
Which semites? The zionist bankster class FUNDED Hitler and demonstrated in his parades and formed a collation government with him.
The Jews historically consisted of the people, the kohannen priests, and their levite attendants. If we consider the world wars as a great demographic exercise, with peoples and their cultures slated for dissolution, then the orthodox stetl and ghetto Jews would have been included in this Equation; and it would have ben the 'priests' who would have Planned their Participation.

Usury lenders left with the profits long before economies peaked and pogrom ensued. Profits were used to seed new growth elsewhere.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (23) Aug 28, 2012
How could a great nationalist German/Russian war be Planned and Executed, destroying obsolete Xian orthodox cultures throughout Eurasia, and leave the virulent medieval Jewish culture to fill the gap? Their culture need to be ended as well if Europe were to have a future.

But as they could not be expected to fight for either Nazis or stalinists, another Solution had to be found. Industrialized pogrom.

Demographic goals were achieved. The Priests had once again Prosecuted a Rational War against the true enemies of rulers everywhere - the people.

The Shoah included not only millions of Jews, gypsys, poles, and gays; but millions of ethnic Germans and Russians as well, before and during the war, and in the decades to follow during soviet martial law.

Cultures destroyed. The Eurasian continent depopulated. Slow growth thereby enabled through family planning and ABORTION. A stable peace thus established at the dawn of the nuclear age, as it absolutely had to be.

World Conquest 101.
Estevan57
1.5 / 5 (25) Aug 28, 2012
Kov - How about the semites he had killed and burned in ovens? Will they do?
I am glad you and Oddo approve of the Final Solution.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.