Given the population shortage faced by most developed countries, will we see robots begin to replace infantry?
>>65200901Yeah, it's already happening in Ukraine. Drones are used in place of infrantry due to a lack of manpower by both sides
Those same countries are too deindustrialized to replace the demoralized population with robots.
>>65200901>population shortageShortage for what? Workers? If there's less people you need less products. Which means less workers. It's all a lie.
>>65201275>If there's less people you need less productsA declining population is also an aging population, meaning more dependents and fewer workers.
>>65200901I'm honestly not sure.On the one hand: >>65201213 Good points, on the other, barring a large scale war which we seem to be going away from I don't see it being used to its full potential. The 2 main powrs in the world are the USA and China and the USA has a habit of just overengineering everygoddamnthing and making things absolutely state of the art so it isn't obsolete for literal decades. Which is the exact opposite of what infantry is. And they will make a very good case, possibly an amazing case, as to why it needs to cost $20 million per unit.....But it's still the exact opposite of what infantry is.And China, well, they haven't gotten the worst of their demographics hit so throwing people at any problem is still both the most effective and cheapest solution. Right now anywaySo color me unsure.
>>65200901Never? Humans wont run out, they're infinitely cheaper to produce and more capable than any machine of the same weight class
>>65201872Raising a human from birth to 18 years old in a western nation is generally estimated to cost between a quarter and half a million dollars. You can get a pretty good drone for that much.That said, if a war starts then you have already paid for all those 18+ year old bodies, so just using them is the short term cheaper option over building a bunch of expensive tech even if you lose all their economic output in the long term.
>>65201286>as to why it needs to cost $20 million per unitDoesn't it cost the government millions before Joe Public is permitted to shoot his rifle in anger? Even if it's only $2 million, if it could be replaced for $20 million without a massive loss of effectiveness I think the US would be going balls deep into that. I think you made up a random number you thought was large but made it way, way too low.
>declare being a nigger is a crime>fill up prisons with niggers>institute penal battalion >economy is boosted while nothing of value has been lost(except the mine), and your more valuable mobik soldier that can actualy drive a truck or calculate artillery are put to good use like working in a factory to make drones>use jeets auxiliary(if they survive(they wont) they get boooby vagena) to demine a zone and out the hiding spot of enemy gunners.
