"All comments moved here from redirected pages     

 == Images == 

 Isn't the image a SWORD, and isn't that different from a TALON (slightly modified)? 
 If not, then shouldn't the SWORDS page have a different picture?  Or are they similar enough? 
 Blah.    
 : Yes your right of course its the weapon carrying version of the Talon in the pictures. The picture says that now.     

 == Prices == 
 ""The current price of one unit is $230,000, but when it enters mass production the price is expected to drop to between $150,000 and $180,000. Even in cold economic terms, the SWORD is still cheaper to destroy than a soldier, who takes years and approx. $50,000 USD to get to operational status."" 

 What the darn? $150,000 is clearly not cheaper than $50,000. -   

 :Yes its obviously a serious mistake if you can train a soldier even to private level for $50,000 US then I would be very surprised. I must confess I don't know how much it would be here in the UK or in the states but I don't think for one second its that low. You have the lodgings, food, wages, and then the training itself. I think its correct the robot would be cheaper but can't really back that statement up with anything concrete.     

 == last paragraph == 
 Sorry, but the last paragraph is hilarious. ""On the firing range, these two-foot little high robots are lethal"" ?? Whow, they shoot living beings as targets on firing ranges ? But anyway, this is not the point, right, since the shooting range is clearly the most accurate and appropriate way to evaluate the quality of a weapon system, especially a robot ! Come on ! 

 And ""the SWORDS are the snipers motto, ""one shot, one kill""""... Can't it be made slightly less like a builder's advertising prospectus ?  

 I won't even mention the fact that we are talking about a waepon system, designed to kill living people, who would typically deserve more respect than the price for their burial or the comparison with paper targets on a shooting range...   

 :lmao you do have a point it does come off very odd, though I don't think for one second its builders would describe it that way. Must redo it but I'm a bit stumped at the second of a good way to reword it.    "