Killer Robots, "Acceptable Machine Behavior" (When Drones Attack)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

snip

"The concept of "fighting from barracks" or the "remote warrior" raises such questions as whether a person operating the drones – sometimes from thousands of miles away and "walking the streets of his home town after a shift" – is a legitimate target as a combatant. "Do we fully understand the psychological effects on remote operators of conducting war at a distance?"


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/18



The report warns of the dangers of an "incremental and involuntary journey towards a Terminator-like reality", referring to James Cameron's 1984 movie, in which humans are hunted by robotic killing machines. It says the pace of technological development is accelerating at such a rate that Britain must quickly establish a policy on what will constitute "acceptable machine behaviour".

"It is essential that before unmanned systems become ubiquitous (if it is not already too late) … we ensure that, by removing some of the horror, or at least keeping it at a distance, we do not risk losing our controlling humanity and make war more likely," warns the report, titled The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems. MoD officials have never before grappled so frankly with the ethics of the use of drones. The report was ordered by Britain's defence chiefs, and coincides with continuing controversy about drones' use in Afghanistan, and growing Pakistani anger at CIA drone attacks against suspected insurgents on the Afghan borders.

http://dronewarsuk.wordpress.com/
?w=208&h=300

The UK Ministry of Defence has published a new document, to “inform and prompt wider debate” on military unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), commonly known as drones. The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems is a Joint Doctrine Note (JDN) that examines technological and scientific issues related to current and future use of armed and unarmed drones. It also sets out, for the first time, what it sees as the legal, moral and ethical issues that arise from using such systems.

Arguing that unmanned aircraft now hold a central role in modern warfare, it states “there is a real possibility that, after many false starts and broken promises, a technological tipping point is approaching that may well deliver a genuine revolution in military affairs.”

The publication of this report is very much to be welcomed, in particular its recognition of the serious moral, ethical and legal issues at stake with the growing use of unmanned drones and autonomous systems. At just over 100 pages long the document covers a lot of ground but in this initial review I want to focus on three particular issues.

[peace13]

1. Without reading a word I would like to ask...

Please show us the humans behind the drones. That is all.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Here is one, you imagination will have to do for the rest.

http://childvictimsofwar.org.uk/the-weapons/drones/

[Bosonic]

2. There's unmanned, and then there's autonomous

Which basically means the machine controls itself. I don't think there's currently any operationally autonomous UAVs, but there are some ground based systems (less complex and costly). Here's a promo video for the Samsung robotic sentry, which I believe can be set to operate autonomously, and was mooted for the Korean DMZ. The music in the video may lead you to think this is a parody; it's not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMkV8E2re9U

So in the next 10(?) years there may not be anybody at the joystick to attack/prosecute, at least at tactical level. I imagine strategic mission planning will remain a purely human pursuit for much longer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Stricktly under the Conventions

a member of the armed forces IS a target, valid target. Is he a target if engaged thousands of miles away? Yes.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Agreed. n/t

[Nihil]

6. Strange that ...

> a member of the armed forces IS a target, valid target. Is he a target
> if engaged thousands of miles away? Yes.

... when other people apply that definition to members of the US armed forces
they get branded as "terrorists" and "insurgents" ...

Goose? Gander?

:shrug:

[Rage for Order]

7. I think the poster to whom you responded wa talking about the US Armed Forces

Saying that they are legitimate targets, even if they're thousands of miles from the battlefield, flying a drone from a remote operating room

[Nihil]

8. Oh ... ok ...

> I think the poster to whom you responded wa talking about the US Armed Forces
> Saying that they are legitimate targets, even if they're thousands of miles
> from the battlefield, flying a drone from a remote operating room

I was just getting confused by the reports that say that various attacks on
US armed forces members (wherever & whatever they're doing / have done) are
somehow "terrorism" rather than simply the elimination of a legitimate target.

That's OK then - the playing field isn't quite as distorted as it had appeared!

:hi: