dan107 wrote...
Alright, for arguement's sake, let's assume that there will still be a need for an army-like structure to impose order as opposed to destroy outright. (Although then it's more of a police force, but that's where modern armies seem to be going anyway). The question is then how efficient are human beings (or similar creatures) in terms of combat effectiveness? A soldier's primary purpose is to deliver a weapon into a position from which it can effectively neutralize the enemy, and to fire that weapon. In the most advanced technologies, the human being is rapidly becoming the limiting factor.
Case in point - fighter jets. We are more or less seeing the last manned fighters being produced right now. Practically all research funding is going into UAVs. There is virtually nothing that a UAV controlled by a technician on the other side of the world can't do that a manned figher plane can. But UAVs are much cheaper and have the potential to be much more maneuverable and effective, since their design doesn't have to take into account not killing the pilot. How long before this is true for naval ships? Tanks? Trucks? How long before it's possible to build a remotely controlled robot that's capable of physically carrying out all the primary functions of a foot soldier? How long before it's cheaper to build and deploy such robots than it is to train and deploy live soldiers?
Now apply that to space, where supporting a living breathing human being is several orders of magnitude more expensive than it is on earth. The most that you're looking at in terms future space armies are robots that are remotely controlled by engineers from a nearby location. Certainly not crewed combat ships and space marines. (And that's leaving aside the implications of AIs and VIs. If we get to the point where a robot can not only carry out physical functions in battle, but can make better combat decisions than human beings, that changes the dynamic even further.)
You greatly underestimate what a soldier's job is. A soldier does not merely carry a gun into position so that it can do its job. He needs to be able to asses the situation in real time and accurately determine what is a friendly unit, a neutral one, and a hostile one. He needs to be able to tell the difference, at a glance, between an armed hostile wearing a turban and a bandana and a helpless civillian wearing a burka. No robot we are even close to developing can do that job. Nor are we close to producing a robot that has anything even close to the in the field endurance of a human. He also needs to be able to dig a trench, help build a school, guard a post, rescue a dog, etc etc etc.
Theoretically we could have tele-operated combat waldos, but any remote operation technology is subject to jamming, interference and hacking, none of which is a problem for the human soldier. In an age of high speed information warfare a human presence in the loop becomes more critical, not less.
UAV combat aircraft are practical because air combat is so much simpler that ground combat is several important ways that all relate to the type of decision making that humans are good at and robots suck at.. Ground combatants do not have predicatble outlines and IFF transponders.
As far as AI autonomous robotic ground troops, they exist in the ME universe. They are called Geth.
Amazingly, everyone else is sticking to organic ground troops.
Modifié par Andorfiend, 10 février 2010 - 10:24 .
Retour en haut
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
, probably should read over my posts before submitting them 
