"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun -- Tom Lehrer
OK, so I'm confused. Why is an autonomous killing machine more frightening and appalling than existing weapons? Is it because no human is involved in the final choice of target? If so, I think we crossed that line a long time ago, as soon as killing somebody no longer required meeting them face to face. Here's a short list of weapons systems that, to a greater or lesser extent, blur the distinction between an autonomous kill and a conscious decision.
- Landmines, obviously. Their major effect is to kill civilians long after the conflict is over. - Unexploded ordinance. Ditto. - Booby traps including IEDs, if they aren't remote controlled. - Chemical weapons. The person launching them knows roughly where they'll go, but not exactly. - Artillery or bombs with less than perfect accuracy - Artillery or bombs directed against civilian/industrial targets.
Is a ballistic missile that follows a pre-defined trajectory morally different from a cruise missile that adjusts its own course in-flight? Are both OK because a human pushed the initial button? If so, is an interceptor missile that launches automatically based on a detected threat and the absence of an IFF signal morally different? Are you good with it if a human has to OK the launch? How about if it launches by default unless a human countermands it?
To me, the distinction between pressing a button to launch a missile, not knowing for sure what's at the end of its trajectory, and pressing a button to launch a UAV, not knowing for sure who it might shoot, is moot. Both are equally appalling and frightening.
It's interesting that you have these issues, some things a human just feels as wrong you know, only a robot would need to have it all laid out in numbers, get in touch with your inner moral child :)
Also mines are now outlawed, seems all countries had an understanding about them. And most missiles are expensive and take a whole chain of command to launch. And when they use artillery they make damn sure no journalist goes to check the results, also an indication that they know that wasn't nice. Same goes for bombs, there's always a nice filtering going on to not show what happens in reality when you throw them. Plus you forgot the incendiary weapons, look up what a fuel bomb does, something the US tested in iraq, but do it at a time when your stomach is empty, but again it's not mentioned by journalist on special request, and ask yourself why that is.
Mines have to be fabricated, and and companies, like fiat (the car maker), that made them could no longer do that when they went out of vogue, so what stops their use it the lack of availability. (mind you many of those IED's could be called homemade mines I guess.) Plus it seems to work pretty well with mustard gas for instance, seldomly used now.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun
-- Tom Lehrer
OK, so I'm confused. Why is an autonomous killing machine more frightening and appalling than existing weapons? Is it because no human is involved in the final choice of target? If so, I think we crossed that line a long time ago, as soon as killing somebody no longer required meeting them face to face. Here's a short list of weapons systems that, to a greater or lesser extent, blur the distinction between an autonomous kill and a conscious decision.
- Landmines, obviously. Their major effect is to kill civilians long after the conflict is over.
- Unexploded ordinance. Ditto.
- Booby traps including IEDs, if they aren't remote controlled.
- Chemical weapons. The person launching them knows roughly where they'll go, but not exactly.
- Artillery or bombs with less than perfect accuracy
- Artillery or bombs directed against civilian/industrial targets.
Is a ballistic missile that follows a pre-defined trajectory morally different from a cruise missile that adjusts its own course in-flight? Are both OK because a human pushed the initial button? If so, is an interceptor missile that launches automatically based on a detected threat and the absence of an IFF signal morally different? Are you good with it if a human has to OK the launch? How about if it launches by default unless a human countermands it?
To me, the distinction between pressing a button to launch a missile, not knowing for sure what's at the end of its trajectory, and pressing a button to launch a UAV, not knowing for sure who it might shoot, is moot. Both are equally appalling and frightening.
It's interesting that you have these issues, some things a human just feels as wrong you know, only a robot would need to have it all laid out in numbers, get in touch with your inner moral child :)
Also mines are now outlawed, seems all countries had an understanding about them.
And most missiles are expensive and take a whole chain of command to launch.
And when they use artillery they make damn sure no journalist goes to check the results, also an indication that they know that wasn't nice. Same goes for bombs, there's always a nice filtering going on to not show what happens in reality when you throw them.
Plus you forgot the incendiary weapons, look up what a fuel bomb does, something the US tested in iraq, but do it at a time when your stomach is empty, but again it's not mentioned by journalist on special request, and ask yourself why that is.
@Wwhat
Mines are outlawed??!! So are chemical weapons, doesn't stop someone from using them. It's a freaking war, what are we going to do, arrest them?
Mines have to be fabricated, and and companies, like fiat (the car maker), that made them could no longer do that when they went out of vogue, so what stops their use it the lack of availability. (mind you many of those IED's could be called homemade mines I guess.)
Plus it seems to work pretty well with mustard gas for instance, seldomly used now.