Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Army Robots Break Asimov's First Law

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the fourth-law-is-don't-look-at-me-i'm-hideous dept.

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!

4 of 821 comments (clear)

  1. Phalanx... by JDSalinger · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  2. Fluff Piece by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative
    Don't bother with the Inquirer story. It's practically a verbatim copy of the source story here. The only difference is that the source story adds the following comments:
    As I pointed out in the article (and the comments), these devices are not autonomous. For some, this would disqualify them from being true robots. However, the military and the manufacturer both refer to the SWORDS device as a robot, and it certainly fits common usage. The word "robot" comes from the Czech robota (from Capek's play R.U.R.) meaning "forced labor" or "drudgery." This device surely does an unpleasant task usually done by a person. Also, consider that, strictly speaking, an autonomous cruise missile is a self-guided machine, and is therefore a "robot" although most people wouldn't think of it that way.

    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
  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Re:Not really... by NetFu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Obviously, you know nothing about the real military.

    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_s tudy_guide_topics/code_of_conduct/the-code-of-cond uct.shtml

    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.