Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday February 22 2018, @02:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong? dept.

Turkey aims to produce unmanned tanks: Erdoğan

Turkey is targeting the production of unmanned tanks for its armed forces, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has stated. "We will carry it a step further [after domestically produced unmanned aerial vehicles] ... We should reach the ability to produce unmanned tanks as well. We will do it," Erdoğan said at a meeting held at the presidential complex in Ankara on Feb. 21.

Five Turkish soldiers were recently killed in a tank near the Sheikh Haruz area of Syria's Afrin district, where Turkey has been carrying on a military operation against the People's Protection Units (YPG) since Jan. 20.

[...] The Turkish president has repeatedly criticized certain foreign countries for allegedly being reluctant to sell unmanned aerial vehicles, armed or unarmed, stressing that unmanned systems could decrease casualties.

Also at ABC.

Related: U.N. Starts Discussion on Lethal Autonomous Robots
UK Opposes "Killer Robot" Ban


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:21PM (10 children)

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:21PM (#641817) Journal

    Erdogan, like Putin, Trump and Farage, is just putting his county first. It's the modern way, apparently.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:28PM (5 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:28PM (#641824)

    > and Farage

    I actually disagree. I voted remain but I think the Brexit vote was mostly about sovereignty. Immigration and cultural dilution played a very significant role also. I think most Brexit voters accepted the real possibility of economic disadvantage from Brexit, as a cost of maintaining cultural identity and the primacy of democracy. I could rant but I will resist...

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by NewNic on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:19PM (4 children)

      by NewNic (6420) on Thursday February 22 2018, @07:19PM (#641925) Journal

      I voted remain but I think the Brexit vote was mostly about sovereignty.

      The excuse may have been sovereignty, but, let's be realistic: it was about dark-skinned and non-Christian people arriving and living in the UK because of EU rules.

      Leaving the EU will leave the UK with less sovereignty: having to abide by EU rules in order to continue trade with EU nations on favourable terms, while having no input on those rules.

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday February 22 2018, @08:32PM (3 children)

        by PiMuNu (3823) on Thursday February 22 2018, @08:32PM (#641954)

        > it was about dark-skinned and non-Christian people arriving and living in the UK because of EU rules.

        I don't have decent stats to back it up - but my personal impression is that this is just what the remain crew want to believe. I realise immigration was part of the issue. But my impression is that complaints about "euro-sausage" is actually the much bigger deal. That argument falls squarely on the issue of sovereignty and the democratic process (or lack thereof in Brussels).

        Nb: I realise I am siding with the Brexit crowd. My premise is that we should push for a much stronger EU (with Britain a member) that is properly democratic, with a democratically elected president. The stupid EU wandering 1 year premiership thing is ridiculous.

        > having to abide by EU rules in order to continue trade with EU nations on favourable terms

        Well, let's see what happens. That may be the De Facto result, but De Jure at least UK can opt out - whereas we couldn't before.

        • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:58PM (2 children)

          by NewNic (6420) on Thursday February 22 2018, @09:58PM (#642007) Journal

          The UK had a great deal with the EU.

          I am just waiting for:
          1. All the howling from people who take their holidays in Spain and are outraged to find that they have no medical coverage.
          2. Car manufacturing in the UK drastically downsizing, while prices of new cars go up.
          3. Companies in the EU making products with names that are protected in the UK, but no longer protected in the EU.
          4. .... etc..

          Everyone in the UK is going to be worse off.

          Euro-sausage? Really? You can't buy traditional British bangers any more? That's news to me.

          No one want to admit to voting for BREXIT because they are racist, but I'll allow three reasons for a BREXIT vote:
          1. Racism
          2. Ignorance.
          3. Rich people who will be able to screw over ordinary people more now that the protections that the EU offered go away.

          --
          lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
          • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday February 23 2018, @11:09AM (1 child)

            by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday February 23 2018, @11:09AM (#642317)

            > Euro-sausage? Really?

            I think the Euro-sausage was actually Yes (Pri)minister. But it's the tabloid equivalent of "sovereignty". Just as "racism/xenophobia" is the tabloid equivalent of "maintain cultural integrity."

            > 1. Racism
            > 2. Ignorance.
            > 3. Rich people who will be able to screw over ordinary people more now that the protections that the EU offered go away.

            I did find this article (Torygraph, I realise) that supports what I am saying:

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/did-britain-really-vote-brexit-to-cut-immigration/ [telegraph.co.uk]

            Quote:
            "
            Lord Ashcroft's mega-poll of 12,369 voters after the referendum suggested as such, finding that one third of Leave voters chose to back Brexit as they saw it "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders." This was the second biggest motivation for Leave voters, just behind “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”.
            "

            I couldn't find the source poll, unfortunately. And most of the Brexit polls seem to have disappeared into history.

            ==

            Another tack:

            Whose choice was it that we should have freedom of movement in EU? Whose choice was it that we should accept whatever quota of asylum seekers? I never heard any debate about this issue, nor did it ever come up in any election material. Let's say there was a strong "anti-freedom of movement" vote in EU elections - would anything really change? If not, why not?

            One of the big arguments for EU is that it promotes Western democratic values in Eastern Europe. But fundamentally, it is an institution that *is* driven by non-democratic bureaucracy. That's a huge problem.

            ==

            Just to be clear, I would like to see a stronger EU with a proper democratic mandate. We have spent last 300 years dealing with monarchy, oligarchy and autocracy in UK. Shame to chuck away the hard work and replace it with this crappy secondary democracy that we have in EU.

            • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday February 23 2018, @06:54PM

              by NewNic (6420) on Friday February 23 2018, @06:54PM (#642549) Journal

              Lord Ashcroft's mega-poll of 12,369 voters after the referendum suggested as such, finding that one third of Leave voters chose to back Brexit as they saw it "offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.

              As I said, racism. They didn't want to let those "dirty foreigners" into the country.

              Do you expect someone who was so pro-BREXIT to commission a poll that would identify racism as a cause?

              The UK government also made some strategic mistakes. When Poland was admitted to the EU, the UK could have legally prevented movement by Poles to the UK for 2 years. Other EU governments did this. So Poles who wanted to leave Poland for a richer EU country inevitably move to the UK, and were naturally followed by other Poles because there was already a Polish community in the UK.

              It is important to note that the UK *needs* immigrants. The native population is ageing and declining; without immigration, there will be no one to pay the taxes and provide the services necessary to keep the country running and provide for retirees.

              Perhaps I am more pro-EU because, unlike many people, I have actually benefited from the freedom of movement rules. And yes, I share your concern over the undemocratic nature of the EU, but I was also hopeful, as the EU Parliament has flexed its muscles in recent years.

              --
              lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:35PM (3 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 22 2018, @03:35PM (#641833) Journal

    Maybe they need to begin to see that "their people" is the human race.

    If the planet becomes uninhabitable we all lose, including the 'victors'. (The AIs might win.)

    If there remained no longer any capability to record who the victor was into textbooks, does it make a sound?

    Unmanned weapons are only a good thing if they are on your side. As long as they don't decide to be on their own side.

    --
    Scissors come in consumer packaging that cannot be opened without scissors.
    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday February 23 2018, @02:24PM (2 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Friday February 23 2018, @02:24PM (#642371)

      There does not seem to be any threat on the horizon of self-aware AI that could choose to be on it's own side. I'm sure we'll figure it out if we work long enough, but for the foreseeable future the threat is how the machines are used by the small cabal of people who control them. And how they malfunction, because their decisions are clearly not based on the same criteria we would use to generally make the same decisions.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 23 2018, @05:27PM (1 child)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 23 2018, @05:27PM (#642472) Journal

        Yes, I realize that.

        Try this one instead:

        Unmanned weapons are only a good thing if they are on your side. As long as they don't decide to be on the side of the contractor who built them.

        --
        Scissors come in consumer packaging that cannot be opened without scissors.
        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday February 23 2018, @11:13PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday February 23 2018, @11:13PM (#642711)

          It's extremely unlikely they'll go that way either - the contractors have a good deal going, and know full well that the first time they turn their weapons turn against the owners, all their clients around the world are going to start shopping with their competitors.

          I suppose it's remotely possible that one manufacturer would gain enough of the total market share that they had a realistic chance of taking out all their competitors hardware, as well as the conventional militaries involved, and conquer enough area to be worth losing their entire global market. But if they wanted to conquer the world they probably would have gone into politics instead of manufacturing.

          Try a more realistic take:

          Unmanned weapons are only a good thing if they are on your side, and not the side of the government or military that you for some reason imagined was on your side.