[CountDrewku]

They seem to be only presenting the negative aspects of "slaughterbots".

Could they not potentially be better than human controlled devices since they should be able to more accurately target things and create less collateral damage?

Of course, there's always the doomsday terminator scenario where they go haywire and decide to start targeting all humans....

[SonicScrub]

It's worth noting that this line of reasoning has been used to justify the invention of machines that ended up causing many more deaths than before. Richard Gatling was inspired to invent the Gatling gun as a way to reduce the number of deaths by combat. His logic was that if could replace the lines of musket-wielding infantry with a small team that could fire just as many rounds, the number of soldiers an army would require would drop, and therefore the number of combat deaths would drop as well. This line of reasoning was proven wrong, as the deployment of Gatling guns simply caused more causalities in the American Civil War, and the gun's descendants enabled the mass slaughter in the First World War.

Similar logic was applied to bombers in the Second World War. If bombers could fly into enemy territory, hit key targets behind enemy lines and fly out, then the need for armies would go away. Instead we got The Blitz, the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, and the deadliest war in history.

Maybe this time is somehow different, but it's an important historical context to consider. Often the expansion of our destructive capabilities simply encourages more destruction.

[CountDrewku]

Yes I'm just playing devil's advocate. My initial response is that they should be banned but like most things someone will continue creating them. Do we really think China cares whether there's a ban?

Typically the only thing that stops WMD type weapons (not sure if slaughterbots fall into this category) is the enemy having them as well. Assured mutual destruction seems to be the only viable option.