For a start, we could measure effectiveness by subtracting the rate of airborne hijackings from the previous rate. That will give the raw data for assessing domestic airport security, that and the costs involved.

Rusty

stevenlmeyer re: robosoldiers.

So science and technology is catching up with Hollywood. I think it's really interesting to think about all of this so thanks for the thread.

Where robosoldiers are concerned, my thoughts meandered over many possible scenarios, ending in wondering how warring factions (countries or whatever) would decide who had won and how the 'rules of war' would change. Would losing be decided as the side who had lost the most robosoldiers or the most civilians? How could civilians defend themselves. Install electromagnets around the place? Moats - would water be best? Electrified? Would just stairs do - how are these robos on stairs and the like?

But then if winning was about civilian losses, no need for robosoldiers at all - just send bombs. So why bother with robos at all.

I think that robosoldiers might not be all a bad idea, if we can prevent an OCP type organization (like a multinational) producing and owning them. If the idea of robosoldiers is coupled with environmental concerns, then we could skip building them altogether (use less metals; less mining, fuels etc) and just use video games!

Maybe our youngster-nerds who are so quick on the PS controller will be our warriors of the future. Our safety and security will probably be in their hands.

I still think that humanity's biggest threat exists in the corporate conglomerates that are right now redefining borders, economies and the very livelihood of whole populations. Break them back down into smaller units and much of the drive to control whole populations will dissipate.

Steven said: "...controversially deployed in Afghanistan..."

How was it controversial?.

Will it happen here?. Of course, they're already doing it with satellites, and how do you think Tim Holding was found in the bush that time?. Divine intervention?. I don't think so.

Will it happen in Brisbane?. Doubt it, they can't even cough up for a chopper for the coppers. Maybe a drone would be a cheaper option for them.

I only wish the SES had them for when I searched the scrub day after day.

Steven and others,
Robo soldiers,Give me a break have you seen the latest AI offerings?
Ground war machines are slow clunky and not battlefield viable nor are they likely to be so for some considerable time.

Technology/Capitalism are just tools it is the human use of these tools that is the problem. e.g. would you rail against a hammer? It can be used to build or to kill. Clearly, the evil is the human choice of its use.

The problem is with the major corporate entities is that they take on an existence of their own and their primary purpose to to maintain *their* existence and power and that of the individuals who benefit.

The military complexes, have so many employees and those who have gained personal power they can no longer simply produce products for the US security they need to maintain a level of paranoia both at home and with its clients to ensue it's continued growth.

Standard Conglomerates also need the DoD money to maintain their continual growth. Very few don't have military connections.
Part of this imperative it to use debatable means and morality to eliminate any opposition/obstacle that inhibits this thus it distorts supply and demand, national power and in a military context prolongs or exacerbates conflict.

In Israel's case if it stopped it belligerence now it would be forced to deal with its neighbours with equity and that means internal beneficiaries would lose power and benefits. They would be forced to pay the piper for past excessive obscenities.

StG

I did not say "controversially deployed". The Guardian piece said that. I was quoting.

To me there is nothing "controversial" about employing technology to protect your own soldiers. However whether it is really in America's best interests to continue fighting in Afghanistan is another matter.

UAVs, closer to the ground than satellites, can reveal greater real-time detail than satellites. They can also provide far more intensive surveillance. For every satellite you can put up tens of UAVs all covering a small area. UAVs can also follow individual suspects.

If satellites could do it all why would the police be interested in UAVs in the first place?

Pynchme

Glad you like the thread.

One object of deploying robots is to kill the other side's combatants without placing your own men at risk. Both the US and Israel use UAVs in this fashion. Hizbullah head Nasrallah rarely shows his face in public lest he share the fate of Hamas' Sheikh Yassin.

See:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ztdLZ7K66F8/Rhs5rgjHNaI/AAAAAAAAB0Q/h8zANSVblek/s400/Yassin%2BWheelchair.jpg

To the extent that war is about territory I guess the winner is whoever ends up controlling the land.

If two industrialised countries fight on the territory of a third country I guess the loser is the one who runs out of money first. Or who just decides the fight isn't worth it as I think the Americans will do in Afghanistan.

I have a feeling we shall soon get a taste of what robot warfare is like. My guess is that there will be a war between Israel and Hizbullah later this year and the Israelis will make some use of armed robotic vehicles.

Examinator

I doubt the first generation of combat robots will be entirely autonomous but that could come later.

Dear Steven,

I'm not against investing in the latest
technology - providing it is the best
available option, and value for money.

As with many innovations that have the
capability to achieve good results - this will
probably be adopted as we argue about it anyway.
As I've said before the only constant - is change.
It's probably just a matter of marketing this for
public consumption.

Violence is accelerating - and if this means that
it can be preventable - and is the safest and best
way of doing it - then who are we to argue with that?

What I was uneasy about was not the fact that "Big
Brother was watching," but to what end?