Examining the Ethical Implications of Robots in War

Schneier points out an interesting (and long, 117-pages) paper on the ethical implications of robots in war [PDF]. "This report has provided the motivation, philosophy, formalisms, representational requirements, architectural design criteria, recommendations, and test scenarios to design and construct an autonomous robotic system architecture capable of the ethical use of lethal force. These first steps toward that goal are very preliminary and subject to major revision, but at the very least they can be viewed as the beginnings of an ethical robotic warfighter. The primary goal remains to enforce the International Laws of War in the battlefield in a manner that is believed achievable, by creating a class of robots that not only conform to International Law but outperform human soldiers in their ethical capacity."

Comments

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new robotic overlords.

Re:What's the point?

[The Aethereal]

Obviously a country that can send robots instead of soldiers to fight is way more likely to become 'war happy' Of equal concern to me is the fact that a country with a robot army can use them against their own citizens with no chance of mass mutiny.

Re:Why bother going to war in the first place anym

[moderatorrater]

If you've got battlebots, why not have one against another to resolve international conflicts, rather than destroy infrastructure and the like? We've already built structures to solve international conflicts, and it works extremely well when the two sides are willing to work through those structures. The US doesn't need battlebots to deal with European powers, because both sides are willing to talk it through instead. However, when Iraq refuses to cooperate, or the Arabs in Israel refuse to cooperate, the procedures break down and you're left with two countries that can't reach an agreement without raising the stakes.

In other words, for those countries willing to abide by a mountain of treaties, the problem's already solved. It's the other countries that are the problem, and they're unlikely to resolve their differences like this anyway.

Re:What's the point?

[KublaiKhan]

I'd think that it'd be more effective to attack infrastructure--things like power stations, traffic control systems, that manner of thing--than to go after civilians directly.

For one thing, what's the point of taking over a territory if there's nobody there to rebuild and to use as a resource?

For another, it looks a -lot- better on the international PR scene if your robots decidedly ignore the civilians and only go after inanimate strategic targets--at least, up until the point that they get attacked. With that sort of programming, you could make the case that you're "seeking to avoid all unnecessary casualties" etc. etc.

Mowing down a civilian populace does sow terror, of course, but keeping the civilians intact (if in the dark and without water) can be argued to be more effective.

Natalie Portman Robot

[letchhausen]

When are they going to stop using robots for evil and start using it for good? I want a Natalie Portman "pleasure model" robot and I want it now! Science has lost it's way.....

Economic Warfare & Gundams

[infonography]

Consider that robots cost money, the country with more economic power is likely to be the winner in such a conflict. A large part of the U.S.A.'s success in WW2 was the sheer capacity of it's factories which were by if nothing but distance well defended against attack. European nations where under constant attack on their military infrastructure while American Factories where never bombed and even the concept of saboteurs blowing up factories in the States was a ridiculous notion to the Axis. Sure, Blow up the Pittsburgh bomb factory then you still have 20 more scattered about the US.

Robots won't be used simply because a robot doesn't have the discrimination as to who to attack and not to. Despite Orwellian fantasies, the practical upshot is that you would suffer to much friendly fire from such weapons and intense PR backlash. Sorry I don't see it happening.

Telepresence weapons are far more likely, as we have already seen in use.

Japan's Ministry of Agriculture has been denying their work on this. America is full of fully trained pilots for these crafts (Wii, Xbox, Playstation etc).

Suggested reading of Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers and Robert Aspirin's Cold Cash War