Terminator?

[Violet]

Regarding the 'moral' implications behind a (possibly) corpse eating machine: what of it? Why would doing anything at all to a corpse be notable morally?

It does exist. There's just outcry about the 'immorality' of it. So you wouldn't mind the love of your life being devoured by a machine to fuel it's killing? People always personalise issues.

Not if the love of my life was already dead, no. I love him for his personality, not his body

---

But surely the aim of the advancement towards full autonomy in battlefield robots is to remove at least one side from the 'meat grinder' end? Hopefully 'ours'. That's my understanding anyway.

That sort of advancement is multifaceted... but ultimately the value on persons in a society is decided upon by the society. Some societies don't give a rat's left ankle about their human population (as they have so many of them, eg. China).

I thought some bright spark had seen the films, and realised what effect the sight of a 'mindless' killing machine tucking into the corpses of its defeated foes would do for an enemys morale....'We kill you, we eat you, we kill you some more.' I'd probly p*** my pants. Public opinion also fights wars, how would a nation which uses corpse-fuelled robots to fight its battles appear to the rest of the world.? Self-sustaining, turn-em-loose and forget 'em machines to kill and dispose of all in its' 'program'.
Think flesh gives a better energy return, although harder to deal with/digest. Survival is also a major factor. Hunger narrows options.

How about tanks large enough to trample over 2 story buildings with little-no difficulty? Somehow I'm more frightened of the tanks. "Self sufficient" robotic troops simply isn't as efficient in wartime as other technologies. And even if it were (for the sake of argument) more efficient, that still does not detract from the efficiency of humans behind the technology.