- Sep 23, 2005
- 31,991
- 5,854
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
For those not familiar with lethal autonomous weapon systems, you can review the following article which gives a summary of ethical concerns, discussions of bans, advantages and disadvantages of the systems, etc.:
Pros and Cons of Autonomous Weapons Systems
Countries are developing weapons with varying degrees of autonomy. The advantages of machines that can work and react faster than a human, and without the limitations of humans are driving the research further.
However, these represent a threat to humans in the future. With atomic weaponry attempts have been made, and still are, to limit the proliferation. But once the cat is out of the bag that has been an only partially successful plan. Atomic war has been avoided among large powers primarily by assurance of mutual destruction.
An example of maintaining assurance of mutual destruction is the Russian response to our missile defense plans. Since Russia did not have the money to invest in costly and uncertain research into missile defense systems they did not try to make a competing plan.
However, our missile defense system still put them at a disadvantage. If we had a missile defense program, and they did not it would open them up to a one sided exchange. This would mean that on a practical level they would not be able to counter any threats from the US, making them vulnerable to intimidation. They had to innovate to maintain mutual assurance of destruction.
Their solution was to make faster ultra-sonic delivery vehicles that could avoid missile defense systems at a relatively lower cost, and to create multi-warhead delivery rockets that would mean that even one device getting through could cause massive destruction. This allowed them to save research costs, but still even the playing field to some extent. And to counter US superiority in conventional weaponry they simply announced they would use small scale tactical nukes against conventional weaponry to resist invasion.
Part of why this strategy worked was that any type of atomic warfare would cause long-lasting harm to the environment, and likely would elicit an escalated response, resulting in even more atomic warfare. The nature of atomic warfare was too dangerous for nations to risk.
We have seen smaller nations wanting to develop atomic bombs or missiles because they realize this can protect them against intimidation by larger powers, maintaining the possibility of mutual destruction.
However, with lethal autonomous weapons (killer robots), the destruction could be limited in scope, and even allow for targeting by facial recognition or other biometrics, and could therefore be deployed in more limited ways. A mechanical mosquito injecting poison could take out targets without causing massive radio-active fallout, etc.
It seems that banning LAW has not worked as the major players are all afraid that others will develop these weapons first, putting them a a disadvantage, similar to atomic weapons.
What strategies would you propose the US follow?
Pros and Cons of Autonomous Weapons Systems
Countries are developing weapons with varying degrees of autonomy. The advantages of machines that can work and react faster than a human, and without the limitations of humans are driving the research further.
However, these represent a threat to humans in the future. With atomic weaponry attempts have been made, and still are, to limit the proliferation. But once the cat is out of the bag that has been an only partially successful plan. Atomic war has been avoided among large powers primarily by assurance of mutual destruction.
An example of maintaining assurance of mutual destruction is the Russian response to our missile defense plans. Since Russia did not have the money to invest in costly and uncertain research into missile defense systems they did not try to make a competing plan.
However, our missile defense system still put them at a disadvantage. If we had a missile defense program, and they did not it would open them up to a one sided exchange. This would mean that on a practical level they would not be able to counter any threats from the US, making them vulnerable to intimidation. They had to innovate to maintain mutual assurance of destruction.
Their solution was to make faster ultra-sonic delivery vehicles that could avoid missile defense systems at a relatively lower cost, and to create multi-warhead delivery rockets that would mean that even one device getting through could cause massive destruction. This allowed them to save research costs, but still even the playing field to some extent. And to counter US superiority in conventional weaponry they simply announced they would use small scale tactical nukes against conventional weaponry to resist invasion.
Part of why this strategy worked was that any type of atomic warfare would cause long-lasting harm to the environment, and likely would elicit an escalated response, resulting in even more atomic warfare. The nature of atomic warfare was too dangerous for nations to risk.
We have seen smaller nations wanting to develop atomic bombs or missiles because they realize this can protect them against intimidation by larger powers, maintaining the possibility of mutual destruction.
However, with lethal autonomous weapons (killer robots), the destruction could be limited in scope, and even allow for targeting by facial recognition or other biometrics, and could therefore be deployed in more limited ways. A mechanical mosquito injecting poison could take out targets without causing massive radio-active fallout, etc.
It seems that banning LAW has not worked as the major players are all afraid that others will develop these weapons first, putting them a a disadvantage, similar to atomic weapons.
What strategies would you propose the US follow?
