As bloody wars drag on in Iraq and Afghanistan the United States military increasingly turns to human-less warriors to stem the loss of lives. The MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper aerial drones are seeing an increase in use, while remote controlled robots are being used to dispose of improvised explosive devises. At what point do these computer systems move from machines capable of unethical actions, to machines whose very existence is unethical? I argue that fully automated systems should not be used in an offensive manner; rather they can only see ethical uses in limited defensive roles. In exploring this question I will draw on the only fully autonomous US armed forces weapon system I am aware of, the Phalanx CIWS, a missile defense system used by the US Navy. I will contrast this to a Soviet Cold War nuclear retaliation system called Perimeter. Once I have outlined my ideas for a permissible autonomous war machine I will see if it is possible to create a nuclear retaliator that adheres to these guidelines.
The Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) is a ship-borne missile defense system. Its goal is to protect the ship from incoming anti-ship missiles. It does this by searching the sky for object that fit a particular profile. Once an object has been identified as having a high probability of being an incoming missile the system aims a gun at the threat and fires until it is neutralized. It is comprised of a 20mm Gatling gun with an internal sensory and decision-making system. Each Phalanx unit is able to make its own engagement decisions independent of the ship on which it is based. The unit scans the sky until an object that fits an incoming missile’s description. At this point one of two things can happen, if the unit is in...
... middle of paper ...
...one off; timers are ticking. There's a checklist, and soldiers are trained to follow checklists. ”
Perhaps a system like Perimeter could be allowable if it used conventional or tactical nuclear weapons, those with a low yield intended to neutralize military targets, to strike at the enemy’s forces. Instead of trying to wipe out humanity the system could attempt to neutralize the enemy’s ability to attack again, or with more force. This is more like the Phalanx, because it:
1. Is intended to be used against military targets
2. Makes every effort to avoid accidental firing (i.e. the 4 step checklist)
3. By targeting military targets, and especially missile silos, the scale of human death is brought down
This would seem to create an autonomous nuclear defense system that would come closer to what I’ve outline as a more acceptable kind of autonomous war machine.
unmanned are being used in the new concept of military operations. The placement of Special
8 Galum, John, Joshua Shakon and Tan Mau Wu. “National Missile Defense – A CS91 Final Project.” < http://www.cs.swarthmore.edu/~eroberts/cs91/projects/national-missile-defense/index.html>
Protecting the United States from Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction through the National Missile Defense Program
The purpose of the defense options is to find a means to destroy attacking ballistic missiles before they can reach any of their potential targets.
Mutual Assured Destruction. Nuclear holocaust. The destruction of whole nations in the blink of an eye. We cannot hide from the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. These are not ordinary weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation that could destroy civilization and end all life on Earth. Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately - soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm. The world would be a far safer and better place if the Pandora’s Box of nuclear weapons had never been opened.
Out of all the dangerous powers and authority our government wields, possibly the most threatening powers are nuclear weapons. People tend to be frightened by things they do not understand, which make nuclear weapons a perfect catalyst for fear. These weapons have the most overwhelming and destructive power known to man; although, nuclear weapons are only safe in countries that try to maintain harmony and stability. Nuclear weapons are defined as “explosive devices whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei.” This power is both dangerous and unstable in the hands of small erratic countries.
...se of military robots, pose additional ethical challenges. Given the nature of the wars being fought and the technology involved, the ethical questions can only become even more complex over time.
Perrimond, G. (1999, April 14). The threat of theatre ballistic missiles. TTU Europe, DOI: TTU Europe
Vesely, Milan. "Robots for Fighting Future Wars." Artificial Intelligence. Ed. Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Contemporary Issues Companion. Rpt. from "The Robot Revolution." Middle East (Apr. 2005): 22-25. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 6 Dec. 2013.
Nuclear weapons are the safest defense mechanism in the world. Although nuclear weapons can lead to mass destruction and the loss of thousands of lives when detonated, they are the optimal solution to the conflicts between countries in the future. The actual use of the nuclear weapon is not the deterrent, but rather just the mere fact that a country could use it against another country which avoids the large scale conflict. Thus, nuclear deterrence presents itself as a preferred security option. Firstly, based on deterrence theory, nuclear weapons will lead to Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This means that if nuclear weapons are used in warfare, either side will not be able to succeed in winning, as the destruction caused by the weapons will be too much for either side to recuperate from. Since the detonation of “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, nuclear weapons have never been used in warfare again. The world saw the destruction which a nuclear bomb could have. Ever since, this has driven fear to never use nuclear weapons. Although many countries possess nuclear weapons today, they have yet to engage in a nuclear war. This has so far maintained “a tense but global peace” (Mutual Assured Destruction, 2014). As the use of nuclear weapons would lead to the ultimate destruction of humankind, nuclear deterrence is a viable security option as shown by the MAD principles, the application of the MAD doctrine throughout history and the current global stability.
The term weapon of mass destruction has been in existence since the 1930’s. Weapons of mass destruction can be better identified as nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, or radiological weapons. A true definition of weapons of mass destruction is “any destructive device; any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors; any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector; any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life”. Weapons of mass destruction, also known as WMD’s, can be described as nuclear bombs, missiles, toxic chemicals, or hand grenades, artillery shells, and even ammunition often used in cannons. . These weapons of mass destruction are used in some countries on a daily basis. The sole purpose for using WMD’s should be for protection, however, if used by persons other than the military they can be used for nefarious reasons. This paper will identify reasons why the UK has joined forces with other organizations to stop the use of weapons of mass destruction, and their reasoning behind it. It will also illustrate why I believe that weapons of mass destruction are necessary for the protection of our people, our country. The United Kingdom has taken a stand and plans to stop the widespread use of weapons of mass destruction. The United Kingdom will need to use its weapons of mass destruction to save the lives of soldier’s during war. While the UK government has weapons of mass destruction, they do not believe in using them because they believe weapons of mass destruction raises serious humanitarian and security...
The military use of lethally autonomous robots (LAR) is not science fiction – it is happening right now. A robot is a mechanism guided by automatic controls. Autonomous robots are able to independently maintain stability and plan action. The first generation of military robots have operated under direct human control. The most well-known military robots are “drones” or unmanned aerial vehicles. The drone system currently in use is the unmanned aerial vehicles IAI Pioneer & RQ-1 Predator which can be armed with air-to-ground missiles and remotely operated from a command center. Drones have already been used by the U.S. military for unmanned air attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other war zones. (Merchant, 276).
Ever since man first threw stones at their fellow men, the elusive goal of killing one’s opponent from a distance, with absolute precision has been a holy grail of warfare. Weapons such as bows and arrows, rifles, and artillery, were all designed for increased lethality at longer distances, with less risk to the operator. PGMs provide just that capability; that is the capability to put ordinance on target with precision at long ranges. Precision has always played a role in warfare. Whether it was marksmanship with bow or rifle, the ability to place a projectile on target contributed greatly to victory. PGMs were designed with just that function in mind.
False alarm: our fuel is wasted and our pilots's time is also wasted and our aircrafts become less ready for the next attacks.
7. Robots, Ethics & War. (n.d.). Center for Internet and Society. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2010/12/robots-ethics-war