I can't find a source for it, but apparently another company had designed a robot that would walk around on a minefield to set off the mines (every time blowing up a piece of the robot, but it'd keep going). When they demonstrated it, the supervising general got mad and ordered them to stop the testing, saying it was cruel to see the little robot limping along.
Making it smaller is kinda what makes this groundbreaking: it uses less power now, you can transport more of them, and imagine those "dogs" armed with machine-guns, running around, armour-plated to protect the joints, shooting Tusken Raiders and Vodka-drinkers in the everlasting proxy wars
The future of war is going to be dreadful for humans
Why do I instantly sympathize with the robots when they are kicked? Why do people instantly sympathize with something if you give it a human-like or animal-like form or possibly make it utter familiar sounds?
>>41399552 >What's their real goal with these? Selling robotic pets that do things you wish your own (seemingly untrainable) pet could do, but can't because you never trained it to do.
IE, fetch your mail, act as a waiter tray, etc etc.
If they made them humanoid, you'd have the Matrix problem, as in the REAL matrix problem: people empathise with humans and thus their expectations rub off on whatever they empathise. Basically, robots won't act rebellious until humans expect them to act rebellious, the rebellion (like 90% of humans you think YOU'RE feeling) come from other humans. Meanwhile, humans are perfectly okay with subservient quadrupeds.
Welcome to the information age, manual labour is no longer necessary.
>>41401790 >Just not us cause we're retarded. Let's assume for a second that what you're saying is even remotely possible, do you believe that these things would believe that as well? Do you believe that this race of androids will sit back and say "gee, the people that made me everything I am sure were retarded, I mean... look at how perfect I am... just fucking look... oh, wait."
In reality anything computerised performs purely on instructions, if they're not told to do something they simply don't do it. This leads on to my only fear with these things, humans expect things from things they empathise with, like a will to freedom or (in many darker natures) a will to rebel. Computers won't "feel" this until humans expect them to feel it, it's basically the closest they'll come to being "instructed" to overtake us.
>>41401774 Good and evil are difficult concepts, good is actually completely beyond us, the best we understand about evil is that pain is bad and that arbitrarily inflicting it is "evil."
If google abides by some sort of non-aggression principle or victim/damage principle, ala graphic, I'm happy with whatever they do. After that, provided they stay away from our children's minds and let us raise them how we want them, that's a definitely positive.
>>41401160 >Best hope for mankind yet if we ever create AI We've already created AI, it's already capable of doing most things. What you don't understand about AI is that it absolutely requires the input of a human mind, computers will always need programming and direction.
Think of computer programming as data, it's just a recording of a human mind itself, the way it thinks, etc.
>>41402189 Oversimplifications are good, they're a good place to start, just a horrible place to finish.
So, even though I view the militarization of robots with great trepidation, there will be plenty of good things coming out of this for those of us who manage to get at or stay in the middle-class or higher:
Robot servants, pet robot dogs that will never piss on the carpet or bite other people and dogs, sexual robots
I feel bad for the underclass, which will be set back immensely since the value of their labour will become less than that of cheap, chinese-made robots
>>41402540 >proper intelligence Which is? Define this.
When people like you start talking about AI, I think what they mean is what they want is a computer that can essentially be a friend. I empathise with this, but computers aren't really capable of this. The reason other humans are is because you empathise with other humans, to some degree you feel what they feel and they feel what you feel, you share in ways deeper than anything material or even information based.
If you did this to computers, it would only ever go one way. Thus, it would always be an illusion.
>Those retarded and optimistic comments Remember the pro-gun argument that an insurgency could win partly because American troops wouldn't fire on their own? Well now here you have a robot that will fire on you irregardless of political stance and loyalty. Now we have a machine that does not require sleep, does not require food, does not require health care and has no moral compass or ethical reasoning. To anyone with a brain this is frightening. But it will be accepted >think of the lives we'll save!
>>41402540 >Thinking anyone would ever give an AI emotions or desires
Why? Not only would it be difficult, AI is a tool, why the fuck would you want a tool with it's own feelings about any task you give it? Who'd pay for that shit?
What's the market for a toaster that occassionally gets depressed and refuses to work or a lawnmover that gets lonely if you leave it alone for more than a few hours?
Intelligence is just problem solving ability, our emotions and motivations are completely seperate from that, having human-level intelligence doesn't automatically mean it'd be emotional. We want to create machines that can solve problems better than us, Artificial Intelligence, not Artificial Feels.
>>41401136 I wonder why drones still look like somebody is piloting them from a cockpit. like the engineers in charge are still from a generation with human pilots. just as moronic as building killer robots on two legs
>>41401383 this. if robo-mutt becomes a problem in the future, then a glove with emp capability or a projectile fired from a hand held weapon should do it. or the ol, throw it a slice of silicone and run like hell.
>>41403015 nice post, tard. there's no reason for it to sit there. historically pilots had to sit there because they were using their eyes for navigation so they had to sit where they could see the most.
stop building robots and drones that look like they are made for humans
>>41403065 actually an AC (not as crazy fast, as AC4's AC's though) would be much better.
its basically a plane that has legs.
and anon... if you think those things don't have weapons to fight ground/small shit, you don't know Armored Core.
they are more modular than you can possibly imagine.
plus this is a future where they have developed an incredible energy source (that is highly, highly radioactive, and destroys the world after the events of the game) that can power pretty much anything.
so they made giant, Super fast, super deadly Plane-tanks.
however, NEXTS are incredibly expensive and incredibly hard to pilot, so most people just use the clunky Stompy Mechs and hope to god one of the 120 or so NEXT pilots don't show up and rape them.
>>41403187 I'm not an engineer but I can guarantee you that drones won't look like they are made for humans as soon as the current generation of engineers retires and the next one who grew up with machines that didn't need human input take charge
>>41402973 This. asymetric tactics work now, they won't in the future.
Snipe a human infanteer through the head, he drops dead, his military loses his training and skill which takes at least another six months or so to replace if he's fresh out of training, let alone if he was a senior soldier, there's an immediate morale hit to his unit which can last days or weeks and needs specialist psychiatric care to be provided. Their only reaction is to all hit their belt buckles and start trying to work out where the shot came from while you slink off.
Snipe a drone infanteer through the head, you eliminate it's optic cluster, but it's CPU is still operational inside it's chest, that works out which cameras it lost contact with first, and from this establishes the direction of the shot before relaying this to the other drones of it's unit, which all sync their accoustic sensor data from the time of the shot and establish the exact position you fired from down to 95% accuracy. They then start brassing your position up so you can't move, whilst wordlessly coordinating as one of their number advances and drops a UGL round onto you with inhuman accuracy.
and the drone you shot is fully repaired and back on patrol within 48 hours.
>>41403238 Yes, because planes will have moved out of the public consciousness as soon as the current crop of engineers retire. You're an idiot. There's no need to change a proven design and model just to do so.
run a scan of the terrain and incorporate the geometry data within the robot, the robot will most likely have a GPS in it that will allow it to know its position relative to the map, and can still be functional as a unit that can shoot in a general direction
>>41403295 Like pic related probably, practicality beats aesthetics, despite what our German friend thinks, the current drones were designed that way not out of nostalgia for manned planes, but because the aerospace engineers wanted simple, reliable designs without having to go through huge amounts of testing just to come up with something 'new'.
The next gen drones are being designed to provide limited air superiority capability as well as reconnaisance and airstrikes, so will be designed for low radar cross-section and maneuverability.
>The Jihadi cowered in fear >he had just fired an rpg at this thing >another one of the infidels death machines >he unloaded gunfire upon the metal man to no avail >his comrades fled, shouting for Allah to save them. >he was trapped. It's cold red eyes locked in on him >"Allah has betrayed us..." >with one remorseless snap. The machine killed the terrorist and continued on its mission
>>41403477 It just means that once one country's drones have beaten the other country's, the victor can occupy the loser's nation without having to worry about bad press from dead soldiers.
Human soldiers will eventually become irrelevent without significant use of human enhancement technology.
The thing is, we've come on in leaps and bounds in our technology in the last century, but the issue has been miniaturising it for infantry. Just compare our tanks or planes to those a century ago, whereas our infantry, night vision and trauma plates aside, are still using technology that's barely improved by comparison.
But that's starting to change.
Give it another half a century and a baseline human trying to engage either enhanced-infantry or infantry drones will be like a Sopwith Camel trying to take on an F22.
>>41403709 >and we are hurtling towards it Most of the 'AI' you see now is just based on statistical models using huge amounts of data (ie Google). IBM have research in progress to simulate a biological neural network, but it's still in very, very early stages.
>>41403709 >There is no theoretical reason that this will always be the case. There are many theoretical reasons that this will always be the case and there are no theoretical reasons why this won't be the case.
Computers are created by humans and as thus will always be a reflection of humans. No human? No computer. Tools aren't tools without users, it's only when they're used do they serve their purpose. Shit's philosophical.
>>41403764 >It just means that once one country's drones have beaten the other country's, the victor can occupy the loser's nation without having to worry about bad press from dead soldiers. The next best thing...
>>41403709 No one wants a strong AI, it just isn't something that happens by accident, you'd have to program you AI to have human desires.
AI are problem solving machines, no one would pay for one that might decide it doesn't want to do what you tell it to because it's having a bad day.
The real danger of AI is that they have no priorities other than solving problems, and super-human intelligence can design super-human weaponry, an AI will never go "Hmmm maybe I shouldn't follow this human's instructions to build a Tactical Matter-Antimatter Imploder, he seems a bit irresponsible for such a powerful weapon". It'll just design the best, most efficient doomsday device it's capable of designing.
Suitably advanced AI is like handing small children the keys to the armoury. THAT is the real danger of AI, not one of them magically developing a survival instinct and going Skynet on us when we try to power it down for maintenance.
>>41402064 >No worse than a gun or bomb death really It will be harder to stop/evade. And handful of people could control armies of this things. Nowadays if you want an army you need to have human soldiers that may ignore blatlantly wrong or evil order (it happened many times in history, many times during cold war and false atomic attack alarms). You can't order your troops to slaughter your own cities if the rebel for instant, soldiers would rebel and you won't be able to use your "guns and bombs". But with this technology you need only some loyal man to operate an army. It's doors to real tyrany.
>>41403909 >and there are no theoretical reasons why this won't be the case If the human brain operates entirely on the laws of mathematics, then there is no reason why it cannot be simulated on a very large computer system.
>>41403891 Think about how much faster computers allow you to gather the sources and complete research for something a benign as a college essay.
Computers started as a way to easily preform mass calculations that would take a long time for a human to preform. These mass calculations are critical to the advancement of economics/business, the natural sciences, and technology including the advancement of computers itself.
I wouldn't find it spooky. I'd only see it as an indicator in the way technology will progress in one's lifetime from here on.
>>41399552 Can't wait till that thing's killing Russians. They better make it so it can kill russian civilians too otherwise ruskie "civilians" will just attack it. Besides, there's no such thing as a "Russian civilian" anyways.
Imagine dropping a few hundred of those in Moscow and letting them depopulate much of that degenerate shithole in a single night.
>>41403968 >but the human brain has 100 billion neurons all working in parallel The human consciousness is a flow, it's ever changing and perfectly dynamic. The closest I've ever thought about how it could work would be some sort of fluidic computer.
>>41404112 Neurons do not operate at particularly fast speeds, by the standards of modern computers, there just happens to be lots and lots and lots of them. On that basis, a simulation of a human brain could potentially be parallelised across a vast number of CPU cores.
>>41404178 >Which it most certainly doesn't. Human behaviour is quite complex, there are many factors to it, situational and learned. Any sufficiently complex mathematical function will appear to behave chaotically. Just because it appears to be unpredictable, that doesn't mean that it doesn't follow the rules of mathematics on a fundamental level.
All they really need is a system that can harvest energy either from biomass or by connecting to energy infrastructure or stealing various petrochemicals.
Hell, just put a small gasifier on them and let them burn Russian children and body parts and they could keep killing 24/7. Muscovites would be slaughtered while their city is systematically torn apart by helper bots who just collect carbon-based fuels.
>>41404208 What is your intelligence? It's the part of you that allows you to predict, to recognise patterns, that lets you get what you want and avoid things you don't.
None of that is emotion, those are completely seperate. If I removed everything from you EXCEPT your intelligence, if I removed your survival instinct, your desire to reproduce, to feed yourself and keep your mind stimulated etc, you'd just sit there, doing nothing, until you expired.
You'd still be just as capable of solving problems, of designing a tool or building a house as you were before all those desires were removed, but you'd have no motivation to do so.
Humans are not motivated by our intelligence, we're motivated by our desires and our emotional responses to the world around us. Our intelligence is just a tool like our hands that allows us to get what we want.
>>41404218 Do you know the real reason why your relationships with humans aren't illusions? Because they don't always work the way you want them to, people don't always empathise with you 100%, it's that little bit of reality that will always be foreign to computers. Maybe one day one of us will make this very same illusion, but in the back of your mind you've got to know it's always going to be a little too perfect, a little wrong.
>>41404208 Machines already do that, you're just not educated in the ways to communicate with them. With a compiler, a text editor and the right hardware I can make a machine do almost anything. But: >what it is told. It will always do this, no more and no less. What you're complaining about is the "more" part, I guess what I'm complaining about is the "less" part haha
>>41404048 >>41404191 Yea but neurons doesn't work as a processors does. Neuron webs are more complicated and interconected. Sure you could try to simulate that but what you are trying to get is to build a supercomputer probably size of large house (not including cooling) that uses energy imput similar to small town to simulate a work of human brain which is smaller than a persons skull and runs on oatmeal.
Sure there are advantages of computer brain (possible imortality, room to grow among many others) but still you need a lot of energy and money to replicate power of a single man.
On the subject of an artificial intelligence and if a computer can mimic the human brain. First, the A.I. that some are describing is a homunculus. It is fueled by the desire or fear of something that is human but not. It is a myth, a myth perpetuated very early on.
Outside of sex robots and replacements for human companionship, programming an A.I. to duplicate the human mind would be extremely counterproductive. Even in the case of a sex robot, it is unlikely they would want the A.I. to perfectly mimic that of a human being.
Secondly, current computers cannot be programmed to mimic the brain. They are advanced but there are several set backs that current make this impossible.
Quantum computers which may never even be pursued are capable of running the known mathematics of the human brain. I'm no scientist. Quantum computers are interesting in while being able to solve problems that the human brain can solve versus standard computers, they are also prone to error. It would be likely a problem would have to be ran several times with the most common answer accepted as correct. This makes them somewhat impracticable to pursue.
Others think that through speed, current computer technology will be able to match that of the human brain. Different mathematics but same capability. Much advancement in this area has been made... much more then keeping a quantum computer stable.
Storage of memory also is a problem in quantum computing.
I think a "synthetic brain" could be created but see no reason they would want to nor do we have that technology at the time. Paperclips better describe the problem then the Matrix movies.
>>41404362 This is true, there appear to be limits to how far any given task can be parallelised, and a simulation is generally significantly more inefficient than it's 'native' counterpart. However, you also need to consider that it may end up being perfectly viable for processors that simulate the human brain to be designed specifically for that purpose, in much the same way that a GPU is better suited for rendering computer graphics, and is far more efficient at doing so than a regular general-purpose CPU.
we're going about this the wrong way. instead of mounting turrets to these things, we should be making them into rapebots. we can load them with pure aryan semen and have them stealth their way into enemy vagoos, improving their genepool dramatically.
>>41403179 They're also completely fictional and don't adhere to physics. Any real-world mech would have to be armored as fuck, since they'd be expensive as shit and not expendable. Planes are fragile as shit, put a plan on the ground and it will get fucked up. A viable mech would have to be some kind of tank with heavily armored legs and a nuclear reactor for an engine.
>>41404684 Anon, they are being developed for real world use but not on the front line. Many soldiers are injured and killed preforming simple transport runs without ever engaging in a fire fight. Although expensive, it is less expendable then the vehicles and soldiers who drive them.
It is also being considered for rescue mission like those preformed by the Red Cross.
With weaponry and the fact from afar it resembles an animal and is quiet and quick, it could be employed in hostage situations where one might not want to send in people.
>>41399552 I don't think it would be very difficult to stop one of these things. Set up some basic hunting traps or lasso/net the damn thing until it runs out of juice. If you're afraid of EWAR just have a jammer on/near you
>>41401501 >What could possibly go wrong? If making the world safe for Democratic-Republican governments and post-ethnic-nationalim is "wrong" in your book, then you're a fucking retard.
Robots are America's way making the world a better place. Our corporations, vast resources, and Civic Nationalism allow us to be the ideal producers of a robot army (+ navy and airforce) since we have the cold drive to efficiently produce as much as possible (public corporations), in a cheap manner, and without the legal burdens that would apply in Old-World countries founded on ethnic nationalism or embroiled in such struggles. Simply put, we've got the economic capability, military necessity, and legal leeway necessary to build a robot military so that we can make the world a better place without having to worry about one ethnic group coming to power and using the military to suppress another one which happens all the time in the shittier parts of the world (i.e. the rest of the world).
Once we build this army, you can bet your ass that it'll be coming to a country near you. Ethnic nationalism needs to be stamped out by force if necessary and its niche in societies must be replaced by a legal-centric system that ethnically-neutral robots can fullfill. For that reason, it's in America's security interests to ensure that all countries be supplemented with our robots in order to reduce nationalistic conflict by having a 3rd party protect harmony between the people.
Peaceful world harmonization(or 'domination' if you're an anti-American) is in our national self-interest and these technologies have the capability of ensuring that internal nationalistic conflicts in foreign states can't escalate into international conflicts among state.
Besides, imagine how much better places like Africa, the Middle East, and Europe would be if American robot patrols could prevent nationalistic conflicts. Imagine how many genocides, civil wars, coups, and oppressive acts could be prevented.
Some foreigners just Need To Die. Who better to decide who lives and who dies than a country who's objective is to make the world better for freedom by promoting the legal protection of the God-given rights of man? Evil regimes must be exterminated and cold, unbiased, power of American robotics can ensure that the price of encroaching on man's God-given rights is infinity higher than the benefits accrued by doing so.
A robot army will be able to go abroad and slaughter the purveyors of leftist oppression, nationalistic conflicts, and challenges to the national self-determination of the nation-states who must be protected (i.e. Japan, Israel, Germany unfortunately, Saudi Arabia, Korea, Taiwan, much of SE Asia, Jordan, etc) from the savagery of multinational shitholes like China, Russia, Iranistan, Iraq, Turkey, the UK, South America, France, and much of Europe.
Terminating a billion friends of oppression will ensure the survival and well-being of over 100 billion children of liberty.
>>41404848 You need to die >>41404735 You too for sure >>41404674 And you, opressor of natives >>41404636 And all of you scumbag brits >>41404399 Definitly you faggots too >>41404364 You're ok since you'll submit >>41404362 IDK about you >>41404306 Oh, and we better teach these things how to torture scum like you frenchies to death. A liberated world and a continued existence of France (or a wiped out france that died too peacefully) are mutually-conflicting. >>41403430 And you rat-bastards don't belong in the future either. There's no redeeming a serb
>>41405909 Don't worry anon there are plenty of cuntrys building drones, we will just carve up the less advanced societies between us with ruthless efficiency, as time progresses we won't notice how much the machine controls all of us.
>>41405714 But its all true and needs to be done. The anti-American sentiments exist because mulitnational, freedom hating faggots of the world are impeded by their own internal conflicts and thus resort to civil-law-based authoritarianism, mulitnationalism (even in the form of over-arching organizations like the EU), and destabilizing acts of hostility.
The world doesn't need another USSR trying to snuff out freedom all over the world and incite even more nationalistic conflicts than already exist. Such villians should be stabbed to death in the crib instead of being allowed to bring down the rest of the world.
You think I'm increasing anti-American sentiments? Who cares? They all hate us anyways. In order to justify thier shitty existence and inferior mulitnational states, foreigners already blame us for everything and think we're the biggest villians around. Its not like we could make things any worse. Solving these problems in order to bring about a more civilized world in the New American Millennium would incur only marginal increases in resentment whilst eleminating such anti-Americanism in the long run.
America and the freedoms she tries to protect can't co-exist with the Old-World and its ties to Civil Law, ethnic nationalism, and petty conflicts. Europe can't stop trying to make us into a shithole like them. They keep trying to get our guns banned, speech censored, population divided on ethnic grounds and foreign policy decisions abandoned. Either American ways or the ways of the Old World have to go and I'll be damned if its us that has to yield.
Besides, our ethnic makeup would just make us targets of genocide if we fell and you know it. Germans and brits would be trying to exterminate us to prevent another American rise. If we don't make the world a better place, then the old world will destroy us since their ways are inferior but their national resentment can overcome our superior civic nationalism and wear us down. We MUST fix the old world.
>>41406031 Oops. The flags are too small to distinguish the colors that easily. I don't hate you as much as the french since at least you guys knew your place during the cold war even if we had to "encourage" you to make the right decisions.
>>41402837 >>41402889 Mechs will never happen outside of idiotic anime and hollywood movies. A large scale humanoid mech makes no sense at all. Why bother constructing arms and hands to hold oversized guns when for much less ressources you could avoid the countless problems involved and directly attach an optimized and far superior weapon? Why complex, unstable legs just to "glide" and walk when you could just add wheels? Why create a big, fragile, extremely inefficient and costly target that is both easy to hit and easy to destroy when you could instead build smaller, more powerful and stable alternatives without all the fancy crap?
There's a reason why we have tanks instead of mechs. A tank is more compact, more efficient, a lot cheaper and simpler, more stable, more enduring, has much better stability and consequently potential for much more powerful weaponry.
We already have the technology to build basic mechs but we don't. And we won't. Because those intelligent enough to do it know better than NEET wapanese morronic imbeciles.
>>41406083 You are going to need to offer a bit more than a police keeping force if you want us to go along with this, the French own a good portion of Antarctica .... it would be a shame if it found new owners.
A tank cannot travel up a a mountainside, a mech can A tank cannot climb, a mech can (in the future) A tank is limited in its movement, it need to turn its entire frame to move in a certain direction, a mech can sidestep Mechs in MGS4 can jump high as fuck, this is quite feasible, and a tank cannot do that either
But you are right about a mech being easy to hit, but it could fill out many battlefield roles and fight in many places where a tank could not
The EU, like the Eurasian union and all other hodgepodges of Old-World states only exist in order to lessen the destructive tendencies of internal ethnic nationalism. The UK, for instance, had to bad guns, free speech, and all other God-given rights in order to prevent internal nationalistic conflicts from weakening its state as a whole - especially in the modern world where dirty russians can foster internal nationalistic conflicts with Active Measures campaigns and we can't use the Cold War as justification to employ Operation Gladio-like programs to suppress such campaigns. If the Old World didn't supress freedoms and band together into these quasi-empires and organizations, then they would fall apart to the mulitnational shitholes that are willing to do so. If the EU didn't exist, then the Russians would make their own union and start fostering national conflicts within european states just to make them more vulnerable and thus willing to join a Russian union.
Multinational states surrounded by other multinational states have to not only suppress freedom at home themselves, but also have to let the larger unions suppress their freedoms in order to prevent old rivalries and mutual paranoia break them apart. This is why you'll never see free speech, Common Law, gun rights, and other essential elements of liberty being protected in Europe. Even Common-Law UK is pretty much just a Civil Law shithole with a Common Law facade.
Anti-freedom multinational states and their trans-national unions are a serious threat since they can reap the benefits of suppression by stamping out dissent and conducting purely selfish and destructive foreign policy agendas. Since they are built on suppression and coercion instead of freedom and civic nationalism, these mulitnational unions benefit from disorder and suffering in the world and can grow their borders as they supress new subject. They will turn the entire old world against us
>>41406462 Your world-view is pretty attractive, but I don't have much faith in our moral superiority. How do you justify it in the face of things like MKULTRA and the syphilis experiments, and the general criminality found within our government? My patriotism is motivated by interest and this weird feeling of being American, prompted by nothing. I have no reasoning or ideology behind this. I guess that's good because I'll never be reasoned out of it. I'll support anything if I can be induced to believe it is good for the U.S. and it fits my natural inclination. Now it's just a matter of not being duped to support something against our interests.
Maybe I can think of us being morally superior simply because we're American. Then the strife of interests will seem less empty to me. I don't need some divine reason behind my morality. I just need consistency. I just need to find some axioms acceptable to me.
>>41406623 American power comes from mutual cooperation even if it grows out of conflict. Just look at Japan and Germany for instance: we were planning on nuking both of them and Japan was to get nuked at least 12 times had they not surrendered. Now we get along just fine. Contrast that with the USSR who's friendship is synthetic and based on suppression and just look how long that lasts.
America would stop ethnic nationalism by making the Prisoners Dilemma scenario in intra-state conflicts such that mutual defection - like in the cold war with nuclear strikes - would be more costly than mutual cooperation. The mutual defection within intra-state ethnic nationalistic relations is why multinational countries (or nationstates that are subjects of multinational unions) never protect the God-given rights of the people (guns, speech, property, etc)except with token privileges in the name of Civil Law "rights".
Having America use a robot army to police the internal nationalistic relations withing foreign states would prevent foreign states from suffering as a result of their own subjects choosing the current Nash Equilibrium of mutual defection in the form of suppressing God-given rights.
Imagine if we were to police the internal working of Russia and thus prevent Chechen, Siberian, Muscovian, etc conflicts in the first place and make it possible for those groups to work together. Russia could, for the first time ever, not be a shithole of oppression and national instability. They could have guns, free speech, economic freedom, and prosperity.
It would be in the long-term best interest of the rest of the world if America - the nationstate of civic nationalism, common law, and respect for freedom - were to have a powerful presence in every country on earth in order to foster the protection of freedom and mutual cooperation WITHIN the borders of foreign states. Today's apprehension and lack of consent shouldn't stop us since the future would thank us.
>>41406848 Why would you want to climb a mountainside? Why would you want to sidestep? A mech won't be nearly as agile as you think. If you had any knowledge of simple mechanics and materials, you would know how silly this sounds. >Mechs in MGS4 can jump high as fuck >this is quite feasible No, it's not. Look at elephants, the largest land animals alive today. They can't even jump and if you'd drop them from even low distances, they'd critically injure themselves.
The problem is, you base your dipshitting on video games and anime. In case you didn't notice: that stuff isn't real. You can't apply anything from it on the real world.
War is all about being small enough to cover and hide while being able to eliminate your opponents at long range. In a war, you won't run around at the fronts in a giant machine.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2013/07/how-vulnerable-are-u-s-navy-vessels-to-advanced-anti-ship-cruise-missiles.html US Navy faces many problems because their destroyers can easily and reliably be destroyed even by sub-sonic anti-ship missiles. A ballistic missile with entry speed of mach 10 would both be much cheaper than a destroyer and still accurate enough to reliably hit such a large target. And this is only one of many options to counter them.
A mech would be much worse. Much lower range, less defence, worse armor, less stability and so on. Would you rather buy 10 mechs or 100 tanks when strategy can overcome the minor mobility disadvantage and tanks are far superior in everything else?
The future of warfare is automation. It has already begun. The mere concept of controlling a highly complex machine with a single human is fundamentally flawed. Compact, specialized, automated designs are the future. Far superior at what they do than any human, much cheaper and more efficient, resulting in significant advantage in every single aspect.
>>41407630 No, it does not. It comes from Monetized Hegemony. The system funnels money to politicians who them make deals with other politicians. That's the short truth of it. It has nothing to do with "mutual" cooperation. There is nothing mutual about hegemony.
Irish nationalism alone was causing tons or problems within your state and you knew full-well that Scottish and Welsh nationalism could become an issue if it were incited. You didn't ban guns because you were just idiots thinking that people are too dumb to own them; you banned guns because you knew that internal forces - especially if incited by external sources - could present a serious challenge to your ruling regime.
Of course, since you're probably just a dumbass, you'll just spout the propaganda meant to justify it that claims that it was all about "protecting kids" or some other bullshit that wouldn't even warrant such actions.
The biggest thing you foreigners have to fear is American citizens getting interested in external affairs and foreign conflicts. When that time comes, you're all going to pay the ultimate price for protecting the status quo instead of bowing down to the American future.
PS bet you faggots are starting to really regret cutting the telegraph cables and loading arms on the Lusitania now
There is absolutely nothing special about the human brain which cannot be replicated. In fact, women are able to replicate human brains within their wombs. Our bodies literally grow human brains from the readily available resources around us.
You have to be a special kind of stupid to think that there's some kind of physical law preventing us from making brain-equivalents.
>>41407814 >No, it does not. yes it does >It comes from Monetized Hegemony. And, believe it or not, people like joining free trade agreements, defense treaties, and access to various forms of aid and technology. It doesn't take coersion to get people to join us when the alternative is to become a shithole like Eastern Europe, Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam, and much of Africa.
As for the Petrodollar: no one is fucking you over with that. All that it does is makes it so that you're contributing to the American cause every time to buy oil on the international market (unless its from Iran or Russia or a couple other insignificant states). Besides, everyone pays the same anyways so its not like we're denying poor people access to oil. Also, that oil belongs to the Arabs and the Arabs are on our side due to mutual cooperation. We haven't overthrown any kings of Saudi Arabia in order to keep this cooperation going on.
Bitching about our petrodollar is thus no different than arguing that the Arabs have no right to do with their oil what they wish. They don't want to have to defend themselves against Russia and our cooperation lets them stay rich, fat, and happy.
>The system funnels money to politicians who them make deals with other politicians. But it also promotes popular elections and is often done in environments where foreign powers are doing the same. If funding campaigns in some country has an impact, then you can bet your ass that that country is small and weak enough that even Russia can and will influence their politics. Also, like in the Middle East, America and russia aren't the only ones trying to influence elections. Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and the Arabs are all just as guilty.
>There is nothing mutual about hegemony. Yes there is. There's nothing mutual about territorial imperialism (eg Russia, China, EU) however. Hegemony only works when there's mutual cooperation.
In the real world, not all mutual acts seem mutual due to disagreements.
>>41407966 I don't think you know A) Who's side I'm on B) Who's side the MOABs are on C) Who's side you're on.
Myself, the MOABs, and the Government are all on the same side: the American Nationalist side. Why would the American government hate its own supporters?
If you're just another Russian shill, then this is something you can't comprehend. How could it be that the American government's most controversial future acts could be supported by its own people? Well, because they're just causes that are done in the name of American Nationalism.
There is nothing you fags hate more than the American people and the American government joining forces ideologically against you foreigners.
>>41407630 What if our culture is different and dose not like American law? by all objective standards we have achieved parity in quality of life and scientific contributions to humanity.
should we now roll over and submit? if a country of 4 million would not tolerate it what would a country of 100 million think? we are capable of defending our way of life pound for pound against aggressor states but lack the population and industrial base to defend against larger nations.
Advanced robotics removes this obstacle and you would have one hell of a fight on your hands, say you kill everyone of us in an effort to assert hegemony but the machines keep working, keep doing what they have been ordered to, hundreds of years later you would still be fighting a war against a self replicating self evolving machine army that cannot stop because those who commanded it are now gone.
It is the ultimate equaliser and the ultimate dead hand switch, it is the future we chose.
>>41408232 >What if our culture is different and dose not like American law? Who cares? You got Common Law and have just as much right to have your own culture as anyone else. The only thing we'd do is prevent intra-state cultural conflicts from dividing your own people against eachother. International competition must be protected since there are different peoples in the world.
>should we now roll over and submit? if a country of 4 million would not tolerate it what would a country of 100 million think? we are capable of defending our way of life pound for pound against aggressor states but lack the population and industrial base to defend against larger nations. You keep on thinking that I'm advocating invasion when I'm not. I'm just saying that we should protect nationalistic harmony and promote freedom, not impose jack shit on you. You keep getting confused. Yeah, some people need to die but those people are the scumbags in large, mulitnational countries like Russia and China who won't submit to a new world order where they can't derive power from nationalistic conflicts and political suppression. New Zealand doesn't have those problems and can go on banging goats for all I care.
>Advanced robotics removes this obstacle and you would have one hell of a fight on your hands, say you kill everyone of us in an effort to assert hegemony but the machines keep working, keep doing what they have been ordered to, hundreds of years later you would still be fighting a war against a self replicating self evolving machine army that cannot stop because those who commanded it are now gone. We need diverse cultures and independent states as allies in this world. Killing you would be retarded. We wouldn't even need to station robots in your nationstate since you don't have internal nationalistic conflicts that end up fueling opressive government actions.
>it is the future we chose. Ok the, go commit suicide since you don't get what i'm saying. Such a shame.
>>41408232 I think you think I'm talking about exporting more than just freedom and suppressing nationalistic conflicts WITHIN multinational states and unions. Russia and China, for instance, need to be occupied since their internal national conflicts are responsible for the supression of their people with opressive laws limiting freedom. Those countries are threats because their own internal conflicts end up fostering authoritarian regimes that specialize in opression and are willing to expand their borders at the expense of human liberty in foreign states. Russia and China already are good at slaughtering millions of innocent people and can do it again with little or no impunity. Such abilities are only possible because the restraints that countries like the United States and New Zealand already have would prevent us from doing the same.
A robot army could prevent authoritarian states from even forming in the first place by preventing the very 'necessity' for the suppression of freedom that is all too common in European and Asian states. The benefits of having American robots patrolling the streets of Moscow, Beijing, London, Paris, and Brussels is that internal differences could never escilate to anything more than mere differences. Since no one would be afraid of anyone else coming to power and throwing them in death camps, there wouldn't be the mutual hostility that's all to common in Old-World states.
You need to realize that this form of intervention in the Old World wouldn't take away national identity or suppress people; it would merely incentivize cooperation by making it safe to keep their guard down while also stopping those who wish to take advantage of their rivals' lowered guard. We need foreigners so we can have people to laugh at and compete with. We wouldn't benefit from trying to Americanize the rest of the world except in the form of promoting the universal struggle for liberty.
>>41408703 No, they just specialize in information processing in the same way that Walmart specializes in Interstate-highway-based retail logistics, Sears specialized in rail-based retail logistics, and Mcdonalds specializes in franchise consistency and interstate-highway-based food logistics (as opposed to relying on rail and thus never being able to move into the suburbs).
Don't worry, Google is American and won't harm America.
Here's the big picture: >Europe suppresses freedom >America becomes independent in order to protect freedom >Freedom leads to a free market >Free market encourages corporations, free trade and science >Free trade and corporations lead to the creation of a massive hegemony >Massive hegemony of freedom builds robots to protect freedom >Robots bring freedom to unfree states
>>41408130 I agree with you and I would like add that I dont think any of that is possible with the federal reserve in place the US needs to amend the constitution and ban the federal reserve and institutions like it
it is not a government agency it is a private corporation, that has investors that wont show themselves, Im afraid with this inplace and it being so entrenched in american economy that everyone is too unaware or scared of going through a rough patch to get an actual nationally owned bank to support economy/infrastructure and kick out international banks http://youtu.be/iFDe5kUUyT0?t=18m20s
>>41408948 >I agree with you and I would like add that I dont think any of that is possible with the federal reserve in place >the US needs to amend the constitution and ban the federal reserve and institutions like it Agree and disagree. As far as I know, the FED is essential for the petrodollar and for funding foreign fighters in an accountable manner. Unless there's a way to have both those things without the FED, then its more dangerous to go without it than to remain with it. Getting rid of the fed without adressing those other two things would result in the destruction of America due to hyper inflation (due to no petrodollar system creating artificial demand for the USD) and loss of influence in foreign countries (due to no longer being able to fund anyone we want).
Besides, the people who run the fed aren't bulletproof and the generals wouldn't let them live if they don't cooperate.
The argument that we should just get rid of the fed is pushed by the Russians for a reason: its the biggest threat to MOSCOW. The Fed may be a piece of shit but its more harmful to the Russians and the Chinese than it could ever be to the American people. I know you don't like that idea since it complicates things but its the truth.
Russia would love to dominate the Middle East and create the petroruble. Preventing that horrible outcome means that even the fed can be a hero.
Read up on Active Measures so you don't fall for their bullshit. Russians are the ones pushing a lot of the conspiracy thoeries. For instance, notice how most conspiracy theories and anti-FED theories almost always: A) Never ever say anything negative about Russia unless it can be blamed on America B) Always claim America is the problem and say that the people should rise up against the government and... that's it. C) Never address foreign influence except for secret societies/groups. Never do conspiracy theories seem to care about the FSB or other intellegence groups.
>>41409114 >I cant tell if your serious or not but every company you just named are accused by some of doing bad things in america that may hurt the american people Fixed.
Walmart is hated because it makes suburbs more powerful. This is why liberals hate Walmart so much compared to other retail stores. The power Walmart has to bring in tax dollars to suburbs and raise property value is a direct threat to large cities who want more money for themselves so they can support corruption, crime, and poverty. Its hard for large cities to oppress their own people when the suburbs are taking that cash from them with the consent of their subjects.
Mcdonalds: They give the people what they want and, due to being a publically-traded corporation, would be brought to court and punished by the SEC if they didn't maximize profits. This is why Mcdonalds CAN'T LEGALLY raise wages or sell healthier food unless there's proof that it will increase profits.
Sears: is nearly bankrupt and just makes money by private labeling of appliances.
There's 3 realities behind everything: 1) The Matrix: the convenient lie that works on the ignorant and the social 2) Zion: the lie that works on those who quesiton reality but still want to be part of the group and base their views on emotion and cognative dissonance. 3) Reality: the truth were the world makes sense but is incredibly boring and complex. Its the realization that corporations act the way they do for legal reasons and that it isn't merely a good VS evil reality. Its also the realization that what matters in the world is freedom, not nationalism or symbols.
>>41409405 Also I'm Lutheran and hate catholicism since Catholics have purely urban-centric views on human civilization. If Catholics had their way, it would be illegal to leave the city limits of any large city.
Cathlics pretty much are just liberals who oppose abortion and gay marriage. Other than that, they're the same shitbags.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.