Ban Robotic Lethal Autonomous Weapons?

[Big Guy]

The use of robotics in war appears to be escalating exponentially. Drones have changed the logistics of warfare with “pilots” controlling their airborne weapons from thousands of miles away from the conflict and protected from harm by distance.

Now we seem to be on the edge of crossing into the fully autonomous weapons stage. Fully autonomous weapons are weapon systems that can select and fire upon targets on their own, without any human intervention. Fully autonomous weapons can be enabled to assess the situational context on a battlefield and to decide on the required attack according to the processed information.

The reason that I have placed this under federal politics is that the CCW Meeting of Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) is taking place from 13 to 16 May 2014 in Conference Room XIX at the United Nations in Geneva. Canada is one of the nations which has not taken a position.

http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/6CE049BE22EC75A2C1257C8D00513E26?OpenDocument

Canada is on record as opposing the use of land mines and chemical weapons – two indiscriminate methods of killing people. Are LAWS in the same category?

Some proponents equate LAWS with drones and see no difference.

Can the decision over death and life be left to a machine?

Can fully autonomous weapons function in an ethically “correct” manner?

Are machines capable of acting in accordance to international humanitarian law (IHL) or international human rights law (IHRL)?

Are these weapon systems able to differentiate between combatants on the one side and defenceless and/or uninvolved persons on the other side?

Can such systems evaluate the proportionality of attacks?

Who can be held accountable?

Should our Canadian government support or oppose the use of LAWS in warfare?

Edited May 15, 2014 by Big Guy

[eyeball]

I fail to see where we get off thinking we have the right to thwart the evolution of Skynet or the Borg. Mecha deserves its crack at existence and "life" too.

[Guest]

As Clint Eastwood said to Gene Hackman, "deserve's got nothing to do with it".

It's going to happen.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada already supports the development and testing of autonomous weapons systems at several test ranges, including undersea warfare and cruise missile platforms. Technically, the MK 48 heavyweight torpedo in Canada's inventory is an autonomous weapon after wire guidance is terminated (severed).

[On Guard for Thee]

The US already has legal problems with it's own as well as international law because when that hellfire from a drone slams into a village in Pakistan, it's an extra-judicial death sentence and often involving innocent bystanders who are attending a wedding or some such. I can't imagine the consequences of launching some "killer robot" that just roams on it's own. Scary stuff! I hope to hell they don't put Microsoft software in 'em.

[Wilber]

The US already has legal problems with it's own as well as international law because when that hellfire from a drone slams into a village in Pakistan, it's an extra-judicial death sentence and often involving innocent bystanders who are attending a wedding or some such. I can't imagine the consequences of launching some "killer robot" that just roams on it's own. Scary stuff! I hope to hell they don't put Microsoft software in 'em.

Amen

[Wilber]

Canada already supports the development and testing of autonomous weapons systems at several test ranges, including undersea warfare and cruise missile platforms. Technically, the MK 48 heavyweight torpedo in Canada's inventory is an autonomous weapon after wire guidance is terminated (severed).

The obvious difference being the weapon itself isn't making the decision to pull the trigger.

[bush_cheney2004]

The obvious difference being the weapon itself isn't making the decision to pull the trigger.

Not sure what you mean by this....such autonomous weapons initiate warhead arming and terminal homing with detonation based on firmware programming, not real time human decisions. There are autonomous defensive systems in Canada's inventory that will search, detect, track, and engage targets without any human actions (e.g. 20mm Phalanx CIWS on Halifax Class frigates).

[On Guard for Thee]

Not sure what you mean by this....such autonomous weapons initiate warhead arming and terminal homing with detonation based on firmware programming, not real time human decisions. There are autonomous defensive systems in Canada's inventory that will search, detect, track, and engage targets without any human actions (e.g. 20mm Phalanx CIWS on Halifax Class frigates).

I know what Wilber means, I have been on somne of those ships you speak of. Someone has to "pull the trigger" . But more importantly I see you ignored the legal problems arising from extra judicial death penalty.

[bush_cheney2004]

I know what Wilber means, I have been on somne of those ships you speak of. Someone has to "pull the trigger" . But more importantly I see you ignored the legal problems arising from extra judicial death penalty.

Incorrect...the whole rationale behind Phalanx CIWS is automatic target engagement in high threat areas. The U.S. continues to use "death drones", solving international law issues with cash payouts and arrogance. Pop goes the weasel !

[On Guard for Thee]

Incorrect...the whole rationale behind Phalanx CIWS is automatic target engagement in high threat areas. The U.S. continues to use "death drones", solving international law issues with cash payouts and arrogance. Pop goes the weasel !

It finds the target automatically, that's all. I don't think cash payouts resolve blatant legal issues, both homegrown and abroad. Why do you think Bush and Cheney, your two namesakes, or is it numbskulls, never leave home?

[bush_cheney2004]

It finds the target automatically, that's all. I don't think cash payouts resolve blatant legal issues, both homegrown and abroad. Why do you think Bush and Cheney, your two namesakes, or is it numbskulls, never leave home?

Wrong on all counts...(Phalanx has several modes). Bush and Cheney have been to Canada several times...nothing happened. I guess Canada values its economy over prosecuting alleged "war criminals". Autonomous weapons helped to meet a challenge that President Bush issued after 9/11...."terrorists can run, but they can't hide". Just ask Pakistan or Yemen.

Edited May 16, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Incorrect...the whole rationale behind Phalanx CIWS is automatic target engagement in high threat areas. The U.S. continues to use "death drones", solving international law issues with cash payouts and arrogance. Pop goes the weasel !

Phalanx is a short range defensive system used against low flying cruise missles and aircraft. It isn't a mobile system that goes hunting targets and make the decisions to engage them on its own.

[On Guard for Thee]

Phalanx is a short range defensive system used against low flying cruise missles and aircraft. It isn't a mobile system that goes hunting targets and make the decisions to engage them on its own.

Exactly. I spent a week flying arond in circles over CYR 250 (I think it was), as a target for those very systems to calibrate and learn how to lock onto a target. Then I was invited aboard to see it from the other end, so I have some knowledge of how it works.

[bush_cheney2004]

Phalanx is a short range defensive system used against low flying cruise missles and aircraft. It isn't a mobile system that goes hunting targets and make the decisions to engage them on its own.

Such a distinction is not made in the OP. Phalanx is an autonomous, defensive weapons system deployed on many combatants around the world. It "hunts" and "engages" based on operating mode. There's more to automatic death than sexy robot drones in the sky.

[On Guard for Thee]

Such a distinction is not made in the OP. Phalanx is an autonomous, defensive weapons system deployed on many combatants around the world. It "hunts" and "engages" based on operating mode. There's more to automatic death than sexy robot drones in the sky.

Once again, drones aren't automatic. Someone has to pull the trigger.

[Wilber]

Exactly. I spent a week flying arond in circles over CYR 250 (I think it was), as a target for those very systems to calibrate and learn how to lock onto a target. Then I was invited aboard to see it from the other end, so I have some knowledge of how it works.

So why did you bring it up?

[Topaz]

No good can come this kind of stuff and someone genius will be able to override these weapons, to do with whatever their purpose is and then wars will breakout and how many will be left on earth. Man is so stupid at times, or is it greedy or pounds their chest and says, "I'll show you"! What about the costs?

[Boges]

No good can come this kind of stuff and someone genius will be able to override these weapons, to do with whatever their purpose is and then wars will breakout and how many will be left on earth. Man is so stupid at times, or is it greedy or pounds their chest and says, "I'll show you"! What about the costs?

How many movies have shown "The Bad Guy" trying to hack into the US Defences system to launch all the Nukes?

Die Hard 4 was all about a brilliant computer hacker destabilizing America.

If hackers really wanted to bleep stuff up, I'd imagine hacking into drones is a really inefficient way to do it.

[bush_cheney2004]

No good can come this kind of stuff and someone genius will be able to override these weapons, to do with whatever their purpose is

No good ? What if their purpose is to go to an inhospitable environment or terrain, scan the area for targets, and use their "weapons" to analyze rock samples ? Yeah...bad idea...nothing good can come from that.