[grogenaut]

How does one of these things identify civilians or hold a place like Baghdad? Armies occupy. Those weapons destroy infrastructure and people and not much else.

Or do you use them like drones paying soldiers to run them from a container in Kansas. In which case you have the soldier still.

[b112]

Just like drones used to bomb, as you suggest with Kansas.

As time passes though, especially on an actual open battlefield, raw 'kill everything that moves" becomes more of a potential too.

However?

My logic was predicated upon cost, and if implemented, cost reduction due to all those body bags. You think Nixon and Kennedy were purely motivated by the cost of US soldiers, when they wanted out of Vietnam?

They sent those troops there to begin with!

No. They cared about the PR issues, and re-election.

[grogenaut]

They also cared about the PR issues of wiping out villages. They were there to "Liberate" not to wipe out.

You are correct it does make it cheaper (maybe, eventually), but so do bombs or gunships or drones.

These are hella complex machines though. A gun is absurdly simpler as is a drone. And the ground is a lot messier than the air.

The logistics of servicing/repairing them is also going to be hefty. Tanks are a pain for maintenance already and they are much less complicated.