Legally-speaking, the business of killing even in war can be quite tricky.
Consider that the military now operates dozens of armed unmanned vehicles — in the air, on land and in the water. That number is expected to rise exponentially in the near future.
The Law of Armed Conflict dictates that unmanned systems cannot fire their weapons without a human operator in the loop. As new generations of armed robots proliferate, the pressure will inevitably increase to automate the process of selecting — and destroying — targets.
Now comes the weird part.
A new legal interpretation has been proposed within the military to deal with the thorny issue of removing humans from the trigger-end of the killing process.
Here’s how it works: program all armed robotic vehicles to aim only at weapons, not humans. For example, an autonomous vehicle spots an insurgent with an AK-47. The robotic vehicle is authorized to destroy the AK-47. If the human is killed in the process, that’s what’s called “collateral damage.”
This particular legal theory is the brainchild of John S. Canning, chief engineer at the Naval Surface Warfare Center. His presentation on the subject can be downloaded here:
I have written about Canning’s proposal in Jane’s Defence Weekly. For its part, legal representatives in the Office of the Secretary of Defense has disavowed any knowledge of or interest in Canning’s proposal.
(Image: Robart 3, SPAWAR)
Plus, considering that now the Iraqi army and police are the Good Guys, you have to make sure the robots don’t try to shoot their kalashnikovs constantly, yet are still able to distinguish the bad guys’ as well.
Ya know, we said the same thing about using 50 cal machine guns when I was in 101 back in the 80s…
Something about not being legal to use against personnel?
“We aim at equipment (with the 50’s) : vehicles, weapons, helmets, web gear. Stuff like that.“
This was WELL before Barretts, of course.
Besides, isn’t a prerequisite for collateral damage to be acceptable that it be of less value than the target under current Just War doctrines? An automated Predator opening up with an automatic weapon to destroy a rifle seems to be too great a risk of human life when they’re “not the target.“
And isn’t precision of targeting the reason most Unmanned Combat Vehicles are currently armed with spread weapons? Hellfire missiles, shotguns…
“The Law of Armed Conflict dictates that unmanned systems cannot fire their weapons without a human operator in the loop.“
What about mines?
There should be no reason why a robot, can’t select, target, and kill a human, without a human in the loop. It is technically possible right now, as seen by the recent Korean Robot Sentry. It is inevitable. It’s probably more cultural, than anything else. Change the damn law.
It is obvious the US does not have the man power to fight a war of attrition with the endless supply of Jihadists. We should do what we do best, and automate as much as possible. I think you could probably sink up a ‘Boomerang’ like Sniper detector, with a Remote Gun System, and various other technologies, then presto, problem solved. It only would fire, if fired upon. Basically automated air defense, but for ground targets.
Tens of thousands of air and ground armed robots on the loose (automated or not), could be a game changer for the US. This is not the disaster called FCS. No excuse for not having 24/7 surveillance everywhere in Iraq right now.
The NSWC is in Dahlgren Virgina, actually, just a few miles from here. And, yeah, that’s a really…twisted interpretation of the rules, with dodgy implementation possibilities at best.
Always targeting the weapons, right.
“Yeah, the damn thing always shoots a bit high for some reason.”
clever, but I’m not seeing it go anywhere. what happens when the target throws his gun down? throws it into a group of civilians? puts a grenade in a piece of fruit? anyway, I don’t think I’ll ever be comfortable with robots making these kinds of decisions on their own. I’m picturing the scene from robocop where they bring in the prototype for a demonstration and it kills the room full of executives. whoops. still working out the kinks.
this idea obviously wont work. And wont ever happen.
oh, and “BT”…several things are wrong with your strategy…but I agree with many of your (probably viewed as outlandish) points.
One thing is money…it would costs a lot to make robotic foot soldier…but the price tag could be smaller if you mass produce certain designs…say like 1000 or 5000 of a particular design.
But probably the biggest hurdle other than money…and the technology (which isn’t mature enough yet), is the morality. Do you think the general public will agree that its a good idea to build 10,000 armed robots and give then permission to kill people. People will instantly think of Terminator…and vote against it.
Computer processing power, just isn’t there but in 10 years…I think it will be. I agree with you that our military cant keep up with the muslims which blow themselves up on purpose.
yeah, we had similar when I WAS IN THE FORCES. We were only allowed to destroy the
Think again:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar07/4948
As for morality, what about it? You are asking the wrong person to address that concern, that is for ethical humanists. I have no problem with it. Like I said, the FPS gaming generation probably has no problem with it either, compared to some older generation.
All that is needed to defeat the US is kill two soldiers a day, and after a few years, the US declares victory and leaves without producing the desired result. The US has a problem with staying power.
The goal of the insurgents is to kill US soldiers and create the perception of chaos in order to affect US public opinion. This might help turn the tide. You don’t get 72 virgins for blowing up robots!
It’s a stupid idea. You’ll need a pretty damn accurate weapon to selective target just the AK in the guys hand, and you’d probably have to prove to court that it’s feasible to hit it in battlefield conditions, and you probably can’t. There’s no such thing as: “Yeah, we tried to hit the rifle with a salvo this 2cm airburst weapon, but instead we accidentally vaporized the guy holding it and the complete structure he was in exploded in a ball of shrapnel.. sorry, didnt mean too”.
Also the enemy will have a field day with the ‘cowardice’: the mass not-so-tech-savvy people’s you’re invading will be played by the oh-so smart enemy propaganda people.
I forgot to add this insight, quote: “the muslims which blow themselves up on purpose”..
Arent they a bit like robots? It’s not like they think for themselves, act very human or have any value for their live or that of their fellow people. Maybe we could split the legislation: it’s okay to kill muslims with robots, but no robots can be deployed againts white people? Eye-for-an-eye kinda thing?
On the other hand, if you could deploy 100.000 hunter killer drones in the badlands and equip them with camera’s and remote control, you could deploy the west’s major asset: let all our l33t ‘patriotic’ gamers control the drones (through the internets), and let’s see what happens.. maybe first select suitable controllers with an addition to the recruitment game America’s Army, train them a bit more on ethics and let them fight the war from their bedroom PC. That would be mining a serious talent pool indeed.
This reminds me of when we were trained to aim mainly at the chest to ‘stop’ an attacker. It was explained to us repeatedly, and tested, that we were if ever to be questioned to explain that we were aiming at “center body mass” in order to “stop the attacker’s progress.“
Isn’t this just the same thing?
Instead of anyone at any stage verbalizing that anyone had any intent to kill anyone, it was just all about achieving goals and using firepower at enunciated targets.
Wheres Sarah Connor when you need her?
Perhaps you would consider reading the presentation before rushing to denigrate the concept? Naw, because then your criticism might already have been addressed.
The proposed engagement model REQUIRES the use of warnings and non-lethals to separate the individual from the weapon prior to the destruction of the weapon. If the individual demonstraes hostile intent by e.g. firing at the platform then they have made themselves a valid target and the individual would be engaged.
I found the discussion paper (that is what it is after all) to be interesting not just for the unmanned system aspect but for the existing LOAC/ROE model presented within– an excellent summary.
hay so you killed him befor he killed a lot of young men me i say not sorry this war and they started it.
Like tag we got you first RIGHT.
i say use watever means to end this.
before it ends like KOREA our boys still on the 38th paraell for WHAT and i mean army not all marines
I fear most having to bring lawyers with to the field. The rules need to be simple enough for a conscript without a high school degree to understand. We cannot get caught up with the current force structure or a particular battle when creating rules.
I would love to send 60 unmanned tanks into combat instead of 240 soldiers. But we must have strong human control over every aspect of that deployment.
One question that will be difficult to answer at this point is will the fog of war be better or worse with unmanned weapons?
And the law of robotics?
Oh, yeah. Autonomous kill-bots. We’ll definitely never regret developing this technology, let alone the twisted legal theory that justifies it… another sad development in human history.
The comment
“Oh, yeah. Autonomous kill-bots. We’ll definitely never regret developing this technology, let alone the twisted legal theory that justifies it… another sad development in human history.“
is significant. Using such things on a battlefield is one thing. How long will it be before the police deploy them in “civil disobedience” conditions?
What “Right to bear arms”?
This is the best thing for America. To decrease losses and death, we increase technology. These new bots will save lives, as well as stop the terrorist threat by eliminating their targets, humans in the battlefields.
Brilliant to have war where we send virtually none of our troops and let these advanced machines win it for us.
Perfect!
Since we’re already ignoring a half million Iraqi deaths for our 3000 troops, we’ll be able to commit mass amounts of genocide and care even less!
For a federalist company, we sure appear as a totalitarian war machine.…
So an enemy combatant brandishing an AK becomes collateral damage, who cares? In a combat zone, those that carry guns would be combatants and just as likely to die from the pull of a trigger by a human or a machine. If it can be made efficient and accurate, why not save my troops from dying.
As Patton said, ”
ok, but what about child soldiers ? the machine obviously doesn’t make distinction over that.
Ok a killer robot..
so in a REAL war not the crap thats going on in Iraq ( thats no way near a actual war people.)
So in a real war we send in these robots to fight.. and the enemy will not be stupid why would the send flesh and blood against them they would send there own robots Right..
now in this case the only people hurt are the innocent civilians.. now if we are going to fight like this people might as well fight wars between nations using street fighter 2. !!!
You fools. Sooner or later Asia will deploy these kind of robots over american soil and just imagine that. You just can’t see it coming; open your eyes.
But, slowly, we are all the reasons more and more distant from the RO, RO to leave the distance we have much more. I am a lot busier than before, not like before, often on the line. Although sometimes he also give me a little cheap zeny, but I l know that there are misunderstandings between us, and increasingly deep.
All things are the memories, before all things have been imprinted in my mind, the friends all have left the 2moons, sometimes before when the sleeping I often think of the previous screen, together with friends upgrade, earn the 2moons dil and together play with friends, playing now I also feeling some tired
in the game there are many players do not have diathesis, can be said that there were very bored, they often like to ask something about the players looks like, family, and in the game can earn how much 2moons gold, I do not know these people are playing the game or game play them.
in the game there are many players do not have diathesis, can be said that there were very bored, they often like to ask something about the players looks like, family, and in the game can earn how much 2moons gold, I do not know these people are playing the game or game play them.
If you think that play game was important that have you thought about your parents? I want to say that when you played game that you do not forget your parents and friends. When you used your parents give your money to buy the Archlord gold, did you thought that money was your parents
Because of the game, we understand with each other, unknowingly, play with you in the dofus already have more than one year, in the year we experience many things, together with you I was very happy, together with you, I earn many dofus kamas, I think we will together play forever, but I was wrong, until one day you tell me that you will left and said goodbye to me.