Throughout history over millions of life's have been lost due to war and conflict. How do these deaths occur? Well two people or types of people disagree on something and feel that the only way that the problem can be solved is by physically fighting about it until a winner is decided. Sometimes these disagreements result into a war creating these many deaths among people. A lot of times it is felt that the only way there will be a resolution is by struggling through a war. To find this resolution does it mean that innocent lives should be taken? On solution to stop the deaths might be by robots that would be able to fight for humans. This way no intelligent life will be harmed in the conflict. So the question is, should we create such machines that will have power to fight and kill? I think that the effort to stop human death is a good idea, but I do not believe that making killing machines will help. I feel that making robots to fight in combat would have more detriments, which would prevail over the few benefits that it offers.
The main reason for making warrior robots is that by having them fight, they could eliminate the losses of human life due to battles. [Robots, especially in high-risk situations, will act as "force multipliers" and allow war fighters to project force more directly with less personal less risk. By integrating novel coordination and control methods along increasing levels of automation, military robots will reduce the burden and risk for future war fighters. This will permit the soldiers to provide high-level supervision for generally autonomous multi-robot systems customized for their respective tasks] (Parker and Balch 48). I can understand that robots would be better more efficient fighters, but how do we know that they won't use these skills to take human life? Instead of fighting the robots versus robots, what if they had them fight humans? This would not stop the man issue of trying to save lives from war, but it would only make it worse.