RoboCop Reboot Tackles the Ethics of Mechanized War

Will you buy that for $12.50 (plus popcorn and sodas)?Credit: Kerry Hayes / MGM / Columbia PicturesThe original RoboCop movie was more than a crazy, over-the-top violence romp. It had a not-exactly-subtle message that an oppressive, militarized law enforcement culture, fed by corporate cronyism, can be just as dangerous as the crime it was intended to fight.

The movie is 25 years old now, and we can track the militarization of our police forces since that time, sans cyborgs. There’s a remake on the way, scheduled for 2014. The Los Angeles Times, through its Hero Complex blog, sat down with Brazilian director José Padilha to talk about how its message has been updated for our current situation:

“[W]e’re in the future, and drones have been replaced by robots and are being used all over the world for foreign policy and war. Kind of like instead of sending soldiers to Iraq, you send robots to Tehran. This is how we open the movie, with American robots in Tehran, because Iran has been invaded. The idea is, now soldiers don’t die in wars, so there’s no political pressure at home to end wars. Because the reason why the Vietnam War ended is because soldiers were dying. When you take the soldiers away and you have robots, that opens a can of worms. The premise of the movie is everywhere in the world, robots are allowed, except in America, because Americans won’t accept that a robot can pull the trigger, that the robot can decide to take or not to take a person’s life in law enforcement. So this company is losing lots of money because it can’t sell robots in North America, so the solution is, “Let’s put a man in the machine and sell that.” That was the premise of the movie that I said to them in the very first day, and because they wanted to do it, that’s why I’m here.”

Padilha, who was a documentary maker before moving into features, explained how the movie will explore the ethics of accountability:

“When you mechanize and when you create automatic law enforcement, accountability goes down the drain. I’ll give you an example, and it has to do with drones. Say you look at a controversial war thing, like the atomic bomb in Hiroshima. At the end of the day, somebody ordered the bomb, in that case Eisenhower. So you can judge Eisenhower. You can say he was right, or he was wrong. You can have an opinion about it, and pass moral judgment on what happened. Now, when a robot pulls the trigger, because a robot doesn’t have a conscience, who is accountable? If the robot makes a mistake and let’s say shoots a kid by mistake, whose fault is it? It’s clearly not the robot’s fault because it doesn’t make sense to attribute fault to an entity that doesn’t have a conscience (and this is a very contemporary philosophical issue, by the way, that’s being debated in the academic world). Once you have automatic robots making decisions on the spot that can decide whether to take or not take somebody’s life, then accountability becomes very fluid. “

Even with drones having remote pilots, documents show that our government frequently has no idea who it is killing when it launches strikes in Pakistan.

Joel Kinnaman (the absolute best thing about The Killing this past season) will be playing the titular character this time around. Watch the trailer below:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • rts||

    This movie looks terrible.

  • Hugh Akston||

    +ED-209

  • Stormy Dragon||

    This article makes me want to see the movie. Remakes that are just being made because X was popular 20 years ago so maybe it will be popular now tend to be terrible. Remakes that are being made because someone saw an aspect of the story that the original didn't fully develop can be good.

    This article makes it look like the director had a reason for wanting to remake Robocop specifically, so I'll give it a chance.

  • rts||

    Sure, I'll grant that, but going by what I see in the trailer, this appears very poorly executed.

  • Cyto||

    "We make him think he's in control, but he's not. It's the illusion of free will."

    That quote holds out the promise of real, old-school sci-fi writing. After seeing what the director has to say and adding that clip from the trailer - I have some optimism for this remake.

  • Ivoted4KODOS||

    I'm bummed it only has an explosion rather than the delightfully painful, ridiculously graphic and awkwardly long execution scene for Murphy.

  • ||

    The new Dredd was far superior.

  • wingnutx||

    It was exactly what a Dredd movie should be.

  • Ivoted4KODOS||

    Bones Stallone

  • Ivoted4KODOS||

    Dagnabbit. That was supposed to say:
    Bones (is much greater than) Stallone.

    Because, be honest Dredd was pretty badAss despite the horrific creation that was the original.

    "He's thinking about going for your gun"

    "Yup"

    "Oh, Now he's changed his mind"

    "Yup"

  • JW||

    This movie looks terrible.

    Well, it's no pusher robot.

  • Ivoted4KODOS||

    I'd buy that for a dollar!

  • tarran||

    Eisenhower had no involvement in the decision to bomb Hiroshima.

    That was Truman and the commanders in the Pacific theater.

    Eisenhower was in charge of the European theater.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Yeah, I got to the Eisenhower comment and stopped reading. Dummy doesn't know basic American history - cannot be taken seriously.

  • MJGreen||

    The nerve of this Brazilian, to screw up American history in a simple analogy.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    If he's using the analogy, at least get the players right.

  • MJGreen||

    Why?

    The player doesn't matter. He could have said Daffy Duck, and the point would remain the same.

    My guess is that plenty of Americans would also say Eisenhower was president when the bombs were dropped.

  • Almanian!||

    I blame Bush

  • Lady Bertrum||

    It illustrates his muddled thinking. If the movie sucks, and it probably does, it will be in part because he hasn't and won't think through his thesis.

  • MJGreen||

    His thesis has nothing to do with the name of the President in August 1945.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    If an American director made a movie about Brazil and used an episode from Brazilian political history as an analogy to illustrate his point but got the historical facts wrong, he would legitimately be subjected to derision.

  • ||

    Eh, not a big deal. That it wasn't Eisenhower specifically doesn't make a meaningful difference here, since it's not about Eisenhower, Truman, or WW2. It's about the use of mechanized force in conflict and who's responsible for it.

  • Erik Jay||

    Here's why it IS a big deal, actually. Eisenhower OPPOSED the bombing of Japan... as did MacArthur and a slew of generals and diplomats. My pop sat 15 feet from Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials... and wrote an article, "Travesty of Our Times," that opposed the show trials -- as did Eisenhower, by the way. Looks like there are plenty of history errors to go around, and this one matters.

  • ||

    Again, NOT a big deal here, because Eisenhower and WW2 have NOTHING to do with the subject at hand. If he was making a WW2 movie, I'd feel differently. But he's not.

  • Scott S.||

    He's Brazilian.

  • ||

    Uh...so? Getting facts wrong is getting facts wrong. Would you excuse me for getting some Brazilian history completely wrong?

  • Scott S.||

    Probably, yes.

  • ||

    Getting shit wrong is getting shit wrong, Scott. Why would you give that a pass? Isn't it better to stay silent and maybe be ignorant than to open your mouth and prove it?

  • JW||

    Look, we gave you a pass on the "Germans bombing Pearl Harbor"crack. You were on a roll.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is truthy.

  • R C Dean||

    Technically incorrect is the best kind of incorrect, right?

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Would you excuse me for getting some Brazilian history completely wrong?/i

    If the premise of the movie is based upon the culture and history of Brazil then getting the context right matters.

  • ||

    That it wasn't Eisenhower specifically does NOT make a meaningful difference in a commentary about the use of mechanized force in conflict.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Brazil was founded by a brazillion people wearing bras.

  • MJGreen||

    The "facts" are that 1) the US dropped nuclear bombs, and 2) people attribute responsibility to the POTUS. He got the name of the President wrong, who cares? It's an irrelevant fact.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Exactly, it's the group or office that is important, not the actual individual in question.

  • Loki||

    Exactly, it's the group or office that is important, not the actual individual in question.

    And Eisenhower was a Rethuglican, and everyone knows only an evil warmongering Rethuglican would drop a nuke on a major city. Just like only a warmongering Rethuglican would insist on interveneing in a middle eastern countries civil war...

  • Erik Jay||

    Again, you ignoramus, Eisenhower opposed the use of atomic weapons. Period.

  • ||

    Yes, but he did use the tired old cliché at the end of the day. And that is unforgivable.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    If you think his historical ignorance is irrelevant to his movie making skills - great see the movie and enjoy.

    Because he's making a stupid, inaccurate analogy to describe his thesis, I doubt the movie is anything other than crap.

  • ||

    Because his analogy uses a subject that isn't relevant to the movie, the movie must be crap? Sorry, doesn't follow.

  • Fluffy||

    Because he's making a stupid, inaccurate analogy to describe his thesis, I doubt the movie is anything other than crap.

    At that point in the interview, he's making a distinction between a decision with a clear human moral actor to hold accountable (bombing Hiroshima) to decisions taken by machines, that would have no clear human moral actor to hold accountable.

    The identity of the human doesn't matter. He could have used ANYTHING. It's even irrelevant that he used Hiroshima. He could have used my decision to send $10 to Doctors without Borders. That's a decision with a clearly responsible human moral agent. If software randomly took money from my check and made a $10 donation somewhere, who would be the responsible human moral agent? That's the question.

    It will probably be a bad movie, and I doubt he did anything impressive with the question he raises here, but the whole Eisenhower thing is in fact utterly irrelevant to the discussion he was making.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    “What difference at this point does it make?"

  • ||

    I wouldn't care because I don't speak Spanish.

  • ||

    I see what you did there.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Nice.

  • Loki||

    ...and an idiot.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Look, Eisenhower had to do something after the German's bombed Pearl Harbor.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Make that Germans. More than one.

  • CE||

    Hey, when Washington freed Brazil, did he worry about punctuation?

  • Juice||

    Wasn't Eisenhower actually against it.

  • Almanian!||

    He was against it before he was for it.

    Or the other way around - I get it all mixed up with Brasilian King Pedro 1.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    At the end of the day, somebody ordered the bomb, in that case Eisenhower

    Eisenhower? Forget it, he's rolling.

  • SugarFree||

    "Jesus had days like this."

  • Bean Counter||

    Yeah, but He got a do-over.

  • ||

    I, for one, look forward to our robot overlords.

    Can you imagine what server squirrels would do to their systems if you exponentially expanded the ones here at H&R?

  • Almanian!||

    all ur system r belong to skwerlz

  • sarcasmic||

    Every day at fifteen hundred something would blow up. Literally.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I thought the original was a cautionary tale about the dangers automation poses to employment.

  • Almanian!||

    No, that was Metropolis!

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Yeah, Shackford is entitled to his interpretation, I guess, but it was obvious that RoboCop's political subtext was to indict capitalism in general and automation the decline of the Labor Movement that occurred in the 70s and 80s.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I think that was the intended message, but then the message becomes muddled by the fact that RoboCop, the embodiment of labor-destroying automation, is the hero of the film and the CEO of OCP is portrayed as an old coot, but never exactly "villainous."

  • Tim||

    The black humor of the original is entirely missing.

  • Almanian!||

    No blackface? Another reason to skip this horrid sequel.

  • ||

    This guy is utterly misguided. Robotic law enforcement would take the "respect my authoritah" out of it. It would remove the problem: the human element. It would be vastly better than what we have now. Robotic police officers would have no reason to take a bribe, or beat a suspect for resisting, or shoot a dog just to get off on it. What is this accountability shit? There's no fucking accountability now. That's the whole fucking problem.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Give my regards to Officer Dunsel.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, what Episiarch fails to understand is that robots lose their shit, too. The technical term is "malfunction." It's like decades of movies and books never happened.

  • ||

    You're wrong, ProL! Jackson Episiarchstein, your creator, is dead! You have mistaken me for him, you are in error! You did not discover your mistake, you have made two errors. You are flawed and imperfect. And you have not corrected by sterilization, you have made three errors!

  • Pro Libertate||

    If I had been Nomad, I'd have told Kirk that he was, in fact, an android.

  • ||

    Beeeeep, beep, ba, buh, ba, beeep, Norman Coordinate, Ba, Buh, Beep, Beeeep, Booooooooooooooo...

  • Pro Libertate||

    Proof that Kirk was an android:

    (1) We saw him getting made into an android once.
    (2) He fucked and android chick.
    (3) He knew how to fuck with other androids.
    (4) He's too awesome to be merely human.

  • Mickey Rat||

    That makes Dr. Soong sad.

  • CE||

    (5) He beat the Lizard-man with his bare hands and some dirt.

  • Almanian!||

    "Would. You. Like to. Play a game?"

  • MJGreen||

    Or give a guy a break, or take a bribe to look away from consensual behavior.

  • Acosmist||

    Exactly. Uneven enforcement is what makes so many people complacent. Laws stupid, but you can bribe or flatter your way out of enforcement? Then you don't care about them.

    What you're saying is EXACTLY a feature, not a bug, of robots.

  • ||

    Yeah, right up to the point they gained prescience and decided they would be much better off just destroying the humans.

  • ||

    Look, this is a Robocop remake, not a Terminator reboot. Get your ripoffs straight.

  • Almanian!||

    Put down the keyboard and take 3 steps back.

    You have 15 seconds to comply...

  • Pro Libertate||

    I watched the Dredd knockoff. It wasn't as bad as I was expecting, though it wasn't anything great. I didn't realize Lena Headey was in it, though. I thought she did a nice job--she's really a good science fiction (and, of course, fantasy) actress.

  • ||

    Lena Headey is in it? I might just have to see it now. Please tell me her hair is its natural color at least.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Most people seemed to like Dredd more than I did, but I can confidently say if you see it expecting Lena Headey eye candy, you'll be disappointed. She looks absolutely hideous in that movie.

    Every time she was on screen, I was asking "What's wrong with your faaaaaaaaace?"

  • Pro Libertate||

    Dark hair. She's tatted up, but it fits her character.

  • ||

    I liked it and even the 3D was used well which is rare.

  • Tim||

    Here at Security Concepts, we're predicting the end of crime in Old Detroit within 40 days. There's a new guy in town. His name is RoboCop.

  • ||

    I'm sorry, the correct answer was I, Robot starring Will Smith. You lose yet again.

  • Swiss Servator - Gnome Slave||

    (Both)
    It is the future,
    The distant future
    It is the distant future,
    The year 2000

    We are robots

    (Jermaine)
    The world is very different
    Ever since the robotic uprising of the mid-90's
    There is no more unhappiness

    (Bret)
    Affirmative

    (Jermaine)
    We no longer say "yes",
    Instead we say affirmative

    (Bret)
    Yes, affirmative

    (Jermaine)
    Unless it's a more colloquial situation,
    With a few robo-friends

    There is only one kind of dance
    The Robot

    (Bret)
    And the Robo-Boogie

    (Jermaine)
    Ah, yes, two kinds of dances

    (Both)
    Finally, robotic beings rule the world

    The humans are dead
    The humans are dead

    (Bret)
    We used poisonous gases
    And we poisoned their asses
    The humans are dead

    (Jermaine)
    Right, they are dead

    (Bret)
    The humans are dead

    (Jermaine)
    Yes, they look like they're dead

    (Bret)
    It had to be done

    (Jermaine)
    I'll just confirm that they're dead

    (Bret)
    So that we could have fun

    (Jermaine)
    Affirmative, I poked one
    It was dead

    Can't we just talk to the humans,
    A little while longer?
    It could make things better
    Can't we talk to the humans that
    We're together now?

    (Bret)
    No, because they are dead

    (Jermaine)
    Binary solo!

    (Bret)
    0000001, 00000011
    000000111, 00001111
    0000001, 00000011
    000000111, 00001111

    (Jermaine)
    Come on sucker, lick my battery

    (Both)
    Boogie, boogie

    (Jermaine)
    ROBO BOOGIE

    (Both)
    Boogie, robo boogie

    (Jermaine)
    The humans are dead
    Once again without emotion,

    (Both)
    The Humans are dead dead dead
    Dead dead dea-

  • Ivoted4KODOS||

    We shut their Mother Board Fucking systems down

  • Nazdrakke||

    I rather think "respect mah authoritah" would be programmed into such machines.

  • ||

    The whole point of machines is that they don't do that.

  • Dweebston||

    Machines, no, but automating the front line grunts doesn't remove the human element from the administrative and process side.

  • ||

    I can just imagine the intense empathy radiating from police designed by engineers.

  • JW||

    Which is why we need the 3 Laws of Law Enforcement Robotics.

    1. A robot LEO may not injure another robot or, through inaction, allow a human being to harm a robot by not respecting its authority.

    2. A robot LEO must obey the orders given to it by the police mainframe, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    3. A robot must protect its own existence even if such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

  • CE||

    Comply, citizen!

  • mr simple||

    Ted: We may have created a monster in the lab
    Veronica: It's not a monster, it's a cyborg that can kill without remorse
    Ted: I was talking about Phil, what were you talking about?
    Veronica: I was also talking about Phil... it's classified... but it's going to be a fantastic new tool if we can get it to tell the difference between soldiers and children

  • Louis Cypher||

    Do you really want every law on the books rigorously enforced?

    Yes, it is an argument against excessive laws, I am all for that, but for now we are stuck with them. And a robot would enforce every single one every single time.

  • Scotticus Finch||

    That seems to be the only way they may ever get repealed.

  • anon||

    I know I'm late, but an automaton would also lack the whole self-preservation instinct; so, even if a suspect started shooting at it while it were trying to apprehend the suspect, it'd have absolutely no reason to terminate the subject. Simply approach, disarm & detain. If it gets blown up or whatever, it's irrelevant.

    Robots would also be able to recognize the difference between a gun and a sandwich.

  • ||

    But will they be able to tell the difference between a gun and a poptart?

  • Agammamon||

    "This guy is utterly misguided. Robotic law enforcement would take the "respect my authoritah" out of it. It would remove the problem: the human element. It would be vastly better than what we have now. Robotic police officers would have no reason to take a bribe, or beat a suspect for resisting, or shoot a dog just to get off on it. What is this accountability shit? There's no fucking accountability now. That's the whole fucking problem."

    Robotic law enforcement is already here - automated speed and red-light cameras for example.

    Imagine a future where law enforcement is so cheap and ubiquitous that legislatures no longer have to even pretend to carefully craft and debate laws - *and* there's still no accountability when the machines screw up (as they do for red-light and speed cameras all the time).

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    The most important human element is the legislature. As bad as they are, the cops are a protective layer. I can't see how things improving when they don't even have to satisfy the consciences of cops and soldiers in order to use violence.

    At least they way things are now, the psychopaths in cheap suits have to find common ground with the psychopaths in riot armor, and someone's life has to be at risk to some degree. That limits their options.

  • R C Dean||

    And who is held accountable when a robot greases your dog, or your grandmother?

  • Cyto||

    The same guy they hold accountable now....

  • ||

    Now, when a robot pulls the trigger, because a robot doesn’t have a conscience, who is accountable? If the robot makes a mistake and let’s say shoots a kid by mistake, whose fault is it?

    I call bullshit.

    A computer would make much better decisions than current cops, simply because emotion is taken out of the equation. Fewer people would die than die now.

    Most airline accidents are attributable to pilot error. Machines don't make errors (once the programming is ironed out). Same for cops.

    Of course, the lawyers would make less money.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    All robots must obey Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

    1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    2.A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    3.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's important to note that Asimov himself saw problems with those laws as written. Many of his stories explore those problems, in fact.

    Also, he came up with them as a literary tool to play with in stories and novels, and had to twist reality to make those laws hard to avoid (basically, positronic brains were so complicated that coming up with a version without the laws was too much trouble, and people were scared enough of robots not to try). That's not plausible, as he readily admitted, but it allowed him to have his Three Laws dominate robotics.

    I could see something like this governing consumer robotics when they get sophisticated enough, but it'll be an option, not something that's guaranteed to the level Asimov was suggesting. "Sir, for just an extra $1,000, we can program in the First Law. No? Well, just be careful not to offend the robot, then."

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It'll be like the furniture stores, where all the items in stock already have the $150 stain-guard treatment. If you want one without the laws pre-programmed, they have to special order it from the warehouse.

  • Mickey Rat||

    #1 & 2 are kind of difficult to have in police robot enforcing laws.

    Asimov Robocop: You are under arrest. Halt, or I'll say halt again!

    Suspect: Go away!

    Asimov Robocop: Right away, sir!

  • CE||

    BS about the 3 laws. That's just marketing fluff so people won't be afraid of robots.

    Robots follow 1 law:

    1. Do what you're programmed to do.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    It would be funny to have a scene in the movie where Robocop and a fully human partner take in a suspect and the human cop hits the suspect and Robocop immediately arrests his partner.

  • Jordan||

    Or have a scene where Robocop's software gets upgraded based on input from human cops and his HUD displays a "Threat Level: Extreme" warning above a cowering chihuahua.

  • Hugh Akston||

    IDENTIFY: MENTALLY DISTURBED HOMELESS MAN LYING PRONE ON GROUND.

    ENGAGE: PANIC FIRE MODE.

  • ||

    Plus robots are expendable.

    Presumably this would allay all the excessive force for officer safety.

    Yeah, right.

  • Pro Libertate||

    If you think about it, how will autonomous cop robots be programmed? With some libertarian ideal that our government absolutely doesn't share? Or to act like cops do right now?

  • CE||

    One thing is for sure -- procedures will be followed.

  • Agammamon||

    "Machines don't make errors (once the programming is ironed out)."

    That's like saying communism will work, once we get the right people to run it.

  • Irish||

    This movie is unrealistic. There's no way anyone will still be living in Detroit this far into the future.

  • ||

    Bailout bitches!

  • ||

    How would that help?

  • ||

    What you didn't see is that the rest of America is a wasteland as it was bankrupted to bail out Detroit and create the super tech.

  • Drake||

    The original movie was set in a crazy optimistic future Detroit.

  • anon||

    Man, I really thought they just set up random cameras in Detroit for a year and edited the footage into a movie with some CG of Robocop.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Why, oh, why must these people endlessly fuck with classic movies instead of just making their own?

  • Almanian!||

    I second Nazdrakke's emotion.

    Can't wait for the remake of "The Wiz". I mean "Tin Man". I mean "Snow White and the Huntsman". I mean...shit!!!

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    I'm still waiting for Titanic 2.

  • Brandon||

    That's going to be Obama's biopic.

  • Brett L||

    Bigger. Bolder. Still sinks when cut in half!

  • Nephilium||

    The 3D version wasn't enough for you?

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Now with more Celine Dion!

  • Tim||

    Titannic 2: Leo's love affair with the Mermaid from Splash!

  • ||

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

  • RBS||

    But when a tsunami hurls an ice berg into the new ship's path
  • CE||

    Titanic 2: Back from the Deep?

  • Mickey Rat||

    A remake of Ironside is going to be on TV this fall. Think on that and despair.

  • Jordan||

    Joel Kinnaman (the absolute best thing about The Killing this past season)

    Joel Kinnaman has been the best thing about The Killing every season. Not that Mireille Enos isn't excellent too. One of the best shows on TV.

  • Marc F Cheney||

    Joel Kinnaman (the absolute best thing about The Killing this past season) will be playing the titular character this time around.

    That reminds me of the titular line in RoboCop:

    "Boy, Officer Lewis, I never thought I'd be fighting crime as a sort of 'robot cop'... a 'RoboCop', if you will."

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The idea is, now soldiers don’t die in wars, so there’s no political pressure at home to end wars. Because the reason why the Vietnam War ended is because soldiers were dying. When you take the soldiers away and you have robots, that opens a can of worms.

    Not to worry, when everybody else catches up, then it will just be our robots against theirs. At least until Judgement Day.

  • Long Range Boredom||

    You're basically describing Supreme Commander's Infinity War. That's not a good thing.

  • Redmanfms||

    Not to worry, when everybody else catches up, then it will just be our robots against theirs. At least until Judgement Day.

    Well, conceivably once one power has fully autonomous combat robots it can simply war it's way into keeping everyone else from developing that technology.

    It's not like you can build combat robots in a garage, not on a scale in which you could possibly be much more than a nuisance to the power that has robot factories.

  • Tim||

    But seriously folks, robot warriors will lower our inhibitions about war. Why not invade Iran if no Americans have to die? Invade the whole fucking planet. Take their guns, sodas and make them eat broccoli.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Probably, though the debate about Syria shows that it's not always that simple.

  • anon||

    Yeah, I find it interesting that public opinion has shifted against spending money bombing the shit out of people when we don't even have to send any of our people in anymore.

    As always, it's all about money. NTTAWWT.

  • Agammamon||

    Its already being used as a justification - Both Libya and now Syria are being partially justified by the 'no soldiers in danger' meme.

  • Pro Libertate||

    When all armies are fully roboticized, governments will use perpetual war to "boost" economies. There's not even a moral calculus if all you're doing is blowing up some robots.

  • CrazyOkie||

    Did anybody point out that it was Truman, not Eisenhower, that made the decision to drop the bomb? And the fact that our soldiers dying in Vietnam was only one of the reasons the war ended the way it did?

  • ||

    Eisenhower did not commit an act of war when he dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. It was just a limited air strike with no boots on the ground.

  • ||

    Limited? Hell it was just one bomber.

  • ||

    Just one bomber? Hell it was just one bomb.

  • ||

    It really doesn't get any more limited than that.

  • CE||

    And it wasn't even Eisenhower.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I rather suspect almost everyone here knows Truman ordered the nuking of Japan. Almost everyone.

  • Brett L||

    I'll probably repost in the PM links, but I think this is topical.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Uh, oh. Synthetic marriage?

  • Brett L||

    It was inevitable once they started letting the gheyz marry.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I knew polygamy would likely be next, but this is a surprise.

  • Brett L||

    What? He has a wife and a mistress, like any respectable American. Although why he just doesn't keep two girlfriends is the real mystery.

  • Loki||

    Davecat considers himself an activist for synthetic love, and the rights of synthetic humans, such as Shi-chan.

    Uhm... What. The. Fuck... I can't even... I just... huh?

  • Loki||

    somebody ordered the bomb, in that case Eisenhower

    *facepalm*

  • Michael||

    "Somehow...he's overriding the system's priorities."

    HE'S HACKED INTO THE MAINFRAME!!! WE NEED TO UPLOAD THE VIRUS INTO THE DATABASE BEFORE HE TAKES DOWN THE ENTIRE ENTIRE GRID!!!

  • ||

    Tech:"Our webs are down sir. We can't log in!"

    Super:"Which webs?"

    Tech:"All of them"

    Tech:"They've penetrated our code walls. They're stealing the internet!"

    Super:"We'll need to hack all IPs simultaneously."

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement