Boston University Supplemental Essay

Robot weapons have become the subject of hot debate over the recent years. With the use of missiles launched by unmanned aerial vehicles to destroy ISIS military encampments and convoys, the US has proved that automated vehicles are effective in a combat zone where the country chose not to have “boots on the ground”.

Theoretically, automated weapons are perfect for replacing human soldiers out on the battlefields. They can be made to be more quick to respond, more accurate, and do not have to deal with shell shock like most other soldiers have after returning from the battlefield. They can be modified for maximum effectiveness for different environments, do not retreat, and never tire. These robots also do not have a training time like humans do. They come out ready for action. This seems to make automated robot weapons the perfect and natural development from human warfare. The problem is, aside from the fear of robot apocalypses found from fictional stories, that these machines do not feel when they kill.

Presumably, when a human kills another human in war, that human undergoes a profound change. He or she feels horrible for doing such a thing. However, when a machine kills a human, or a human presses a button to cause a death, there is no feeling of guilt. The human does not feel that the death is entirely his or her fault because there was a very significant third party that dealt the damage.

Given that other countries are developing these automated machines, the US cannot fall behind in firepower. However, in a worldly view, I would discourage the use of these machines. The use of machines to kill people takes a shortcut through the mental process of killing a human with your own hands. The proliferation of this type of warfare could lead to a lesser worth of a human life. As humans, we find it very hard to kill others, which is why nobody dies when they make others angry.

Furthermore, using robots to kill people is a very expensive option at the moment. While each human soldier costs around forty-four thousand dollars according to NBC news, the cheapest unmanned aerial vehicle costs

The use of machines as a third party to remove that life from our world would be comparable to the violent video games. Similar to the first person shooters, directly controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle -- like those used in the war against ISIS -- would cover the very real sound of human screams of fear and pain as the volume can be adjusted. The controller would not have the first person experience of the mess that guns create. The controller would care even less about the human lives if he or she was not in direct control of the robot and had programmed it to carry out the mission to end other people’s lives. This is because the controller would not see the resulting carnage or see someone in his or her death throes.

Robots cannot be allowed into warfare because they do not feel when they kill. Thus, there is no feeling of guilt or the feeling of pain when a fellow human dies.