Raw LLM Responses

This entire debate is so naive. Violence makes the world turn. Every resource we have was taken from someone else, either directly or indirectly. A robotic killer would be just another thing on a long list of deadly weapons. All modern weaponry causes collateral damage. Soldiers shoot noncombatants regularly. It's just another cost of warfare. Fundamentally, this "right to life" idea is fallacious. My own government could make me disappear if they wanted to. My next door neighbor could kill me and get away with it, under the right circumstances. I could easily die of a treatable disease should I lack money for medical care. I could be shot by a cop during a traffic stop. If anything, this "right to life" is more of a "privilege to life". That being said, robotic weapons are arguably MORE humane than using soldiers. 1) We don't have to risk our own soldiers. Wars will continue until one side has had enough; the losses of the defeated will be the same either way. Reducing casualties for the victor will reduce the total cost of human lives for a given conflict. 2) Automated weapons are more efficient. If a robot can put a single bullet through an enemy from a mile away, that beats a human soldier by a factor of 60,000 or so. Given that the US currently spends half a trillion dollars on the military, I'm personally all in favor of highly efficient weaponry. That's more money for other, better stuff. Warfare is inevitable; I want my military equipped with the most potent weaponry possible to get it done quickly. 3) Efficient kills are humane kills. Robots do not experience fear or battle anxiety. They don't miss because of nerves. How many soldiers are maimed because of poor shooting? 4) War causes PTSD in our soldiers. Why would we turn feeling men into soldiers, when an emotionless robot could do the job? Machines are not damaged mentally by the work they do, but men can be. Robotic weapons would save our young men from the trauma of combat. 5) Robots do not c