I do not mean it will be tolerable to be near. I mean citizens of nations who choose war will tolerate it more if their own soldiers are not dying in war. If war requires less people and more “stuff” to wage, citizens will feel less motivation to speak out against it. It will make waging war more of an option not less of one, if only equipment is being lost.
They have no problem killing their own people and are only protecting themselves, personally. They refuse to back down no matter how much people suffer, just like Trump and Netanyahoo.
Throwing missiles and drones at all their neighbours, threatening to blow up merchant vessels, is idling? If they could do more they would, but they can’t, not that they aren’t trying. If you don’t understand its because you’re trying very hard not to.
Israel, Iran and Trump, 3 groups that don’t give a fuck about the damage they do and whose strategy is simply escalating until the others back down. Two of which are nuclear powers.
Brainwash. It’s brainwash. Just make more babies with the women who want to have kids. I mean, maybe you shouldn’t have killed your people in a war of useless aggression?
Identifying a future problem caused by the advice is just being pragmatic. Did Australia announce increased service capacity along with this advice? (I absolutely did NOT read the article.)
As hard as that shit goes, we will probably never see an age of human piloted robots.