TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What is wrong with bloodless war?

Continuing the conversation following Daniel Suarez's fascinating TEDGlobal Talk,'The Kill Decision Shouldn't Belong To A Robot,' and Skype's Found in Translation Session, we wanted to ask: What is wrong with bloodless war? Is that the vision presented in the talk? What are the implications of autonomous combat drones?

Share your reflections on Suarez's talk and on the surrounding questions questions.

+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • Jul 18 2013: i do not understand - bloodless war, not sure what you mean. can you give an example
  • Jul 5 2013: If it is "Bloodless" then it is NOT war.
    If it IS war, then it will NOT be "Bloodless".

    Just because the weapon will not have a living operator behind it does NOT mean the the targets of the weapon will not be "living" targets.
    And if you remove the horror of war, the absolute horror and toll to the psyche of killing, then you remove any incentive to end war and the people killed by autonomous machines just become tally points on a data sheet.
  • Jul 1 2013: What is wrong with bloodless war?

    First, in my opinion, there will never be a completely bloodless war.

    What is wrong, is that it is still war.

    There will never exist an adjective for war that will make war not wrong.
  • Jun 30 2013: you could say a bloodless war couldn't end until there is either there is a lasting peace, blood is shed, or all resources necessary to life and otherwise are wiped out entirely

    but this would only apply with drone vs. drone warfare for our purposes i would say that it isn't really bloodless if someone is suffering somehow
  • thumb
    Jun 22 2013: Whoever reflected on the mechanisms to get democracies at war, may conclude, that autonomous combat drones are nothing but the very and just executive end of the whole process and only a logical consequence of the concept of forced interests in technological advanced societies.

    Despite increased efficiency, the main purpose of future combat drones is to reduce the human body count, the bloodshed on the side who happens to be technologically more advanced at the time of conflict, to maintain and prolong the 'acceptance' of a conflict at the 'home front'.

    Therefore and as I see it, those weapons should be classified as a new and 'armed wing' of propaganda warfare and as 'autonomous' results of the 'lessons learned' from the Vietnam War 'media disaster', which of course, was a matter of perspective, yet perspectives are what should be kept vital in democracies...

    The nature of autonomous weapon systems is 'statistically', as it eliminates the (1) in the mathematics of any future kill-ratio and also the 'sense of consequences' within a nation what it actually means to be 'at war'.

    On the 'receiving end', for the enemy, it doesn't make any significant difference if soldiers get killed by 'neuronal' or 'computational' decisions, irrespective the sense for 'cowardice at the enemy', which may occur amongst those still alive ..., yet don't they dare to use killer drones themselves against us, those coward terrorists!!!

    'No robot should have an expectation of privacy in a public place.' Daniel Suarez says in his talk, and I don't know if this was sarcastic or just naive, especially within the current context of Ed Snowden, in which the charge of treason is used as a legal instrument to suppress any so called 'transparency', which Suarez concludes to be 'the secret' to deal with the use of drones in democracies ...

    So as long as you cant even see all military installations on Google maps in your very country, you may not trust 'Drones App' at all the moment you have it.
  • thumb
    Jun 22 2013: I think part of his argument against (or what I would consider an argument against) autonomous combat drones is the idea of saying their use would create a "bloodless war". While it may be bloodless in the sense that perhaps one party isn't having to send actual people to act as snipers or anything and therefore gamble with one of their own's life, there is still someone getting killed. And that terminology, similar in a way to reporting simply the number of dead in a bombing or insurgence, makes it easy to forget about the fact that someone has died. Another human being. It's a way of "taking the humanity out of war".
  • thumb
    Jun 21 2013: Hopefully, persons engaging in internet and cyber activity within commentary and debate will not be considered enemy combatants in the realm of cyber warfare. That would be how the owners that be would try to stifle freedom of speech and of the press that American citizens such as I enjoy and are able to express openly without reproach under current laws. But, the USA government is steadily trying to diminish and harm the Constitutional liberties and freedoms each and every administration. "It takes a village sometimes".
  • thumb
    Jun 21 2013: Hello,
    I have much commentary on world news and local news imput in the Highlands Today news. I would hope that within the global forum as my SKYPE and FACEBOOK are connected will be read by a larger community if possible. Truth and transparency is the mission and accountability and justice is always the goal. We as human beings must unite within our differences and do all we can individually to make life and our planet Earth a better place to reside and co-exist together. I have much wisdom and knowledge in geo-political analysis and can help bring many solutions to the table of problems we all face worldwide, whereas our many current leaders do not seek this. I hope I can help the global community and hope you enjoy the readings. Thank you for all you are doing in cyber space which has NO geographical borders.
    Respectfully, David A. Holland " Zzzoney64 "