UN to call for 'pre-emptive' ban on soulless robot bomber assassins Picture this dystopian scenario. A robotic jet aeroplane takes off on a bombing mission. But this is not one of the "Predator" or "Reaper" drones in use today above Afghanistan - there's no human pilot in constant control as there is with those, and once the jet is in the air there's no way for human commanders to communicate …
"Trick question. What is the difference...
..between a semi-autonomous killer robot programmed by the military and a suicide-bomber brainwashed by radicals?" Simple - the robot is sent by a military governed by the rules of law and - in the case of the Western powers - constrained by the democratic process. The robot will be carefully targeted in line with legal rules of engagement to strike at designated targets, usually distinct military ones. Should the robot hit the wrong target and kill civilians then steps will be taken to make sure the people that sent it do not make the mistake again. Indeed, the people responsible will face a military or civil court if they have broken the law.
The suicide bomber will usually be sent by an undemocratic body wishing to impose a dictatorial rule, without any regard to law, and usually with no concern whether the result is the death of military personnel or civilians. Indeed, they may see added value in killing unarmed civilians. If you can't see the difference then take of the apologist blinkers.
> The suicide bomber will usually be sent by an undemocratic body wishing to impose a dictatorial rule, without any regard to law
Way to miss the entire point of the question.
The poster was asking a philosophical question about the difference between a programmed machine and a "programmed" human as a weapon of war.
Not one part of the question was about politics or the legitimacy of the people doing it.
"Way to miss the entire point of the question....." Nope, I don't think so at all.
".....The poster was asking a philosophical question....." And, like the majority of such philosophiocal questions, it was carefully structured to ignore the realities of the situation. After all, a littel context would show the gaping holes in the argument. If you wish to disagree then please do feel free to discuss the philosophy behind the the jihadis that are being targeted by drones in places like Waziristan, Yemen and Somalia.
The world is becoming a scarier place, indeed. Ideas like this that would have seemed nuts 20 years ago are now with us in reality or not far off.
I recently read "Kill Decision" by Daniel Suarez ... autonomous killer micro-drone swarms anyone? When I finished that book I was left with a distinct feeling that some of the basic ideas in the book may not be as far fetched as one would hope ...
Not a single person on here so far as mentioned Rules of Engagement - There isn't a hope that anything like this would every make it into service in full automated mode due to the need to have positive human ID on all targets before you fire.
The ability to pick up targets of opportunity or time sensitive targets has always been the holy grail for modern day fighting. No longer do we have the threat of very obvious columns of tanks flooding over European borders; instead we have the threat of small easily hidden targets that have the potential to cause great loss of life. The only way to counter this threat is to have eyes-on all the time with a very fast decision to bang loop (ie. Hypersonics) - or to have eyes-on with loitering munions in the area all the time (ie 24hrs) and the only way you can do this is with a drone - but you will still always need a man in the loop to make the final decision.
The US does not allow UAVs to designated targets. Targets are designated and authorized by a human. Drones or UAVs may have the ability to acquire their target, but they do not "choose" or make a value judgement based on some arbitrary threshold. GLCMs and others that don't find their target simply go find an open space and impact there. Even CBUs are dropped against a designated target and simply acquire a target (if the CBU can acquire).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
