> Is there anything wrong about destroying a defense contractor?
A company like Boston Dynamics? Absolutely yes.
They were working on next-gen robotics that would directly save American soldier lives - both while in combat and during rescue operations. Their technology was also being tested for domestic search-and-rescue operations where it was too dangerous to send in humans.
Some people make the case that war should remain dangerous so countries are reluctant to start wars. Or maybe some see a trajectory from robotic mules to robotic weapons platforms. In those cases, no amount of search-and-rescue window dressing would change their minds.
War is not the only scenario where there is armed conflict.
Stopping a genocide, inserting a military "buffer" in-between two hostile nations, general peace keeping, hostage rescue, VIP protection, bomb location/defusal, hijackings, and more come to mind.
The fact is, soldier's lives are going to be put into harms way, even in a perfectly at-peace world (which none of us live in).
Perhaps I'm biased, as I come from a military family, but I'd far rather a walking circuit board take a bullet over a human soldier.
I worry that the net effect on lives lost will be negative. If all else were kept equal, it would be positive, but all else is unlikely to stay equal. One of the few things keeping the U.S. military from being even more interventionist than it already is, is that the U.S. public has little stomach for its soldiers losing their lives, which heavily constrains military planners (which is a good thing!). If those constraints were loosened, which is one of the goals the military has in funding robotics, I expect that they will be even more gung-ho about sending in firepower to places where it is going to end up causing a lot of civilian "collateral damage". The drone program of the past 5 years is already shaping up that way. Its rules of engagement and the way the U.S. public has responded to it, so far, suggest that when the lives in question aren't American soldiers' lives, neither planners nor the U.S. public consider minimizing loss of life to be a particularly high priority.
> One of the few things keeping the U.S. military from being even more interventionist than it already is
The US military is not interventionist - the US politicians are.
The military has little-to-zero say in what military actions they participate in, rather the politicians decide what is politically advantageous for themselves, the country, or the world - and give the orders. The military must then carry out those orders - and I'd still rather they have the option to send a robot instead of humans.
> they will be even more gung-ho about sending in firepower to places where it is going to end up causing a lot of civilian "collateral damage"
Part of the goal of robotics is to reduce "collateral damage". Humans make mistakes all the time in the field, which can and does result in friendly fire, civilian casualties, and more.
A lot of people make stupid cases. Should giving birth be dangerous so that people are reluctant to have unwanted children? Should sending email be dangerous so that people receive less viagra spam?
If each email cost a penny to send, 95% of spam would disappear. A little impedence can be a good thing.
There are many good reasons not to make war too easy or efficient. Too often politicians trend toward groupthink and acting en masse, like a faceless feckless mob. Making invasion as easy as sending spam would be very bad.
There's a big difference between "a little impedance" and "risks human life". War waged with robots will still cost money.
If politicians make bad decisions, perhaps you should try fixing that instead of sacrificing the lives of young men for a small chance of making those decisions more painful.
Robots aren't just about war. Japan is pursuing robots to help the elderly. If Google X was really making a bet on the future, they would see the value of BD beyond defense contracts.
