Slashdot Mirror
US Military Moving Closer To Automated Killing
Doofus writes "A recent article in the Washington Post, A future for drones: Automated killing, describes the steady progress the military is making toward fully autonomous networks of targeting and killing machines. Does this (concern|scare|disgust) any of you? Quoting: 'After 20 minutes, one of the aircraft, carrying a computer that processed images from an onboard camera, zeroed in on the tarp and contacted the second plane, which flew nearby and used its own sensors to examine the colorful object. Then one of the aircraft signaled to an unmanned car on the ground so it could take a final, close-up look. Target confirmed. This successful exercise in autonomous robotics could presage the future of the American way of war: a day when drones hunt, identify and kill the enemy based on calculations made by software, not decisions made by humans. Imagine aerial "Terminators," minus beefcake and time travel.' The article goes on to discuss the dangers of surrendering to fully autonomous killing, concerns about the potential for 'atrocities,' and the nature of what we call 'common sense.'"
Landmines do automated killing every day!
The 'automated recognition' in this case was a large orange tarp. The difficulty of creating an automated recognition algorithm for an orange object in a natural background is extremely low. Wake us up when this thing can recognize camouflaged tanks in a forest.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I read somewhere recently a quote that, IIRC, was from Churchill. It was something about avoiding war, but if you must fight, fight with severity, for that is the most humane. I think that applies here. Though it sounds incredibly cruel, if people are not dying in your war, there will be no incentive for either side to stop.
Of course, Gadhafi, Hussein, Stalin, and similar madmen are somewhat of a counter example in that they don't give up no matter how many of their side are killed. Yet Japan in WWII is an example of the ruthless severity (nuclear bombs) causing an immediate and complete cessation of any attempts to create war.
Even modern times with Gadhafi and Hussein, the invasion of Iraq was much more severe than the Libyan rebels, thus the shorter amount of time to cause the government to capitulate. (Getting the rest of the population to stop fighting, much harder... we'll see how Libya does without the outside intervention.)
Anyway, the point is that robot vs robot is war by proxy. Without the violence, the bloodshed, the impetus to end the war just won't be the same. They'll drag on for longer and longer, and resolution will be even less certain than it is today. I'm not sure that's necessarily such a good thing.
All power comes from the barrel of a gun. Aimed at you - to make you comply. Willingly, or otherwise.
All power comes from being able to make someone happy. Really, think about it. A gun is no guarantee that someone will comply. If they feel certain you will shoot, then it has almost no power at all. The power of a gun comes from the fact that you MIGHT make them happy by not killing them.
If your goal is to get people to do something, you'll do much better paying them than trying to threaten them. And if you can make them happy in other ways, you may be even more powerful than merely with money.
Obama didn't obtain the most powerful office in the world by threatening to kill people (King George tried that, and got a revolution). He got votes by giving people hope for change. How much change he delivered is a different thing (certainly he delivered some), but people were happy to believe that it might be true. So they voted for him.
The reality of power is different than what a lot of people think.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That won't be an issue. The only prominent US politician who's serious about ending America's wars is even more serious about ending all forms of welfare.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
If ever there was an appropriate time for the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag, this is it.
Looks like they automated Godwin too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What bothers me is these things make war easier to wage. When Americans aren't coming home in coffins, it's a lot easier for the public and politicians to accept war, therefore we're more likely to start wars.
If we're risking our own soldiers and pilots, at least we might think twice and look for other solutions before starting a war. However, once you've made war palatable to your own public, too often it becomes the first resort especially amongst the hawkish (and religious right versus non-Christian enemies)
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
If you can have a discussion about war without talking about economics, then you're probably a child. If you can have a discussion about war without talking about ethics, then you're probably a politician.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
That's all well and good, but I am more concerned about our robotic overlords commanded by the one or few who need killers without conscience and without any sense of right or wrong.
We already have a government in the US who felt it was necessary to use contractors to perform acts which exceed that which the military service members should do. But that's not good enough. They want killers who will kill, ask no questions and tell no one about it.
I don't think that having good ol' fashioned humans die in our wars is morally required of a sovereign people, rather, I question how we can truly feel ownership of our society if we do not control it, protect it, assist it and direct it.
I think there's another issue to consider before we even get near to asking questions about "societal ownership".
Automating front-line offensive & defensive forces makes it much easier for a government to use it's military might against its' own citizens, as there will be far less of a problem with human officers and front-line soldiers refusing to open fire on their fellow citizens and/or issue orders to that effect.
Somebody in the White House, Pentagon, or some military installation just types a command and pushes the "Enter" key and people are automatically hunted down and killed. A tyrant's dream.
Robots and drones are already being utilized in domestic law enforcement, so how long would it be before these fully-automated weapons systems were used domestically? You know they will be eventually if we allow it. History shows us that human nature is all too predictable when it comes to governments having immense power over relatively defenseless citizens. Governments always seek more power & control, and it never ends well once they achieve a large amount of it.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Just politically correct. The US already has policies in place that effectively meet and exceed the goals of the Ottawa treaty.
We stopped selling mines, we destroyed old stockpiles. we have spent over a billion dollars clearing mines and helping victims (usually not our mines). Our new mines are self-destructing or self-disarming, and policy is to not place one without its position being recorded, and that it be removed from any battlefield after its need has passed.
Even with that, the only place we actually use them is in the Korean DMZ. The last time we used them in combat was the Gulf War, in limited use. These were scatterable mines, fired or dropped to a specific grid coordinate to deny use of that small area to the enemy. Since this was their first use we did make mistakes, as apparently not every shot was recorded and reported for later easy cleanup. Rules for their use have since been changed, and by now they should be converted to self-destructing or self-dearming anyway.