Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Army Robots Break Asimov's First Law
buanzo writes "The US Army is deploying armed robots in Iraq that are capable of breaking Asmov's first law that they should not harm a human.
SWORDS (Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems) robots are equipped with either the M249, machine gun which fires 5.56-millimeter rounds at 750 rounds per minute or the M240, which fires 7.62-millimeter rounds at up to 1,000 per minute.
" update this story refers to this article from 2005. But com'on, robots with machine guns! I don't get to think about that most days!
I guess it depends what you consider to be a robot? And under what conditions it could kill another human? The Phalanx defense system, currentlly employed on U.S. Warships, would allow itself to shoot down an enemy aircraft if it were attempting to crash into the ship. The Phalanx uses radar to detect incoming missiles and shoot them out of the sky by unleashing an insane amount of bullets in direction of the target. Pictures and info here. -C
These are actually robots, but they're not the fully-autonomous solutions that Asimov was suggesting that mankind needed protection from. Thus the "laws" of robotics don't apply here, because it's still a human who's doing the thinking for the machine.
In effect, this is a safe way for ground troops to line up a kill zone, then cause lots 'o bad guys to get torn to shreds. Prior to this, troops needed to use a vehicle-mounted machine gun to get this sort of rate of fire. This was extremely limited in close quarters, where a Humvee or Tank might not fit. While it was theoretically possible to carry a machine gun to the combat zone, such weapons are difficult to transport, setup, and use in close quarters.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The US is not a democracy, it never has been. The US is a democratic republic. We use the democratic process to elect officials to act on our behalf.
You do realize that the Geneva Convention is a treaty that only applies to the treatment of soldiers of signatories to the treaty, don't you?
Wrong.
The signatories of the treaty agree to follow the rules regarding the treatment of the prisoners they take, their actions during wartime, etc.
A country that signs the treaty has to treat the prisoners of war that it captures according to the rules specified in the treaty, regardless of where those prisoners come from. That's why it's so important that the prisoners of war...excuse me, "enemy combatants" aren't officially recognized as prisoners of war... otherwise we'd have to treat them according to the rules of the treaty the US signed.
Pretty please spare everyone the bullshit until you know what the hell you're talking about.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Also, you only highlighted the first half of the amendment, let's consider the other half:
The first half states the reason for protecting the right. The second half states the right itself and limits the governments' power with respect to the right. Some gun control advocates argue the Second Amendment is only a collective right, not an individual right. But if you follow their reasoning, it would apply to the First Amendment too.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Geneva Convention Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Hate to interrupt your uninformed rant, but persons who violate (b), (c), and (d) don't count as "prisoners of war". It's right there in the text of the geneva convention.
HTH
HAND
as on who also believed that Iraq had both Chemical and nuclear weapons in 2003, I decided to look up the answer to that. The answers I've gotten so far are:
1) before ODS (Operation Desert Storm) Iraq had Nuclear weapons, Chemical weapons and Biological weapons.
2) during ODS all or nearly all of the capability to produce, refine, or use these weapons was destroyed, either through US bombing or from inspectors.
3) after ODS and before OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) the US had poor intelligence as to the Iraqi production capabilities of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons, so it was easy for them to assume that Saddam's saber rattling about having such weapons was true.
4) now, after (or during) OIF, the truth is that we think that there was no Nuclear or Chemical weapons capability in Iraq, (though the materials to make chemical weapons were certainly there), and there is some question as to where alot of Biological weapon stockpiles were.
Source of this is http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
Ira
Obviously, you know nothing about the real military.
s tudy_guide_topics/code_of_conduct/the-code-of-cond uct.shtml
I was in the U.S. Army, and we do not do whatever we're told by our superiors "give or take". There's no give or take involved since the Vietnam War. I know you said "Professional soldiers", but we are talking about the U.S. military, not just any merc.
The U.S. Armed Forces Code of Conduct is taken very, very seriously by all of the members of the U.S. military. All U.S. soldiers are required to know it BY HEART and to understand every word of it, and it's impact on them as a modern soldier.
Read every word of it, since you obviously never have:
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_
Pay close attention to article 6: "I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free."
Every U.S. soldier is responsible for his own actions, not his superior who ordered him to do something illegal. A soldier who follows an order that is illegal or just plain wrong according to that soldier's morals is just as guilty as his superior who gave him that order.
The bottom line: Any U.S. soldier can refuse to carry out an order if he believes it is illegal, and that soldier's judgement of whether an order is illegal is governed by his own morals.
A robot has no morals, but if this Army robot is just a machine remote controlled by a U.S. soldier, then that soldier will be held accountable for any action by the robot, which is just an extension of him.
Given that freedom that every U.S. soldier has to evaluate the orders they are given, there will still be incidents where soldiers with bad or no morals do horrible things when carrying out their orders.
But, how is it any different when a U.S. citizen decides to take an automatic weapon to a school to gun down a couple of dozen kids?
It all comes down to the morals of the indvidual, regardless of whether the person is a U.S. citizen or soldier. U.S. soldiers are no better or worse than the average U.S. citizen.