Slashdot Mirror
UN Debates Rules Surrounding Killer Robots
First time accepted submitter khb writes "It seems that the UN has started a debate on whether to place limits or bans on robots that can kill without manual supervision. It seems that bombs are viewed as 'kinder' than robots which might be programmed to achieve specific ends (e.g. destroy that bridge, kill anyone carrying a gun, etc.)."
So, tell me how a cruise missile that's autonomously guiding itself via GPS or TERCOM toward a target after being launched isn't already a "killer robot"?
It was commanded to launch, yes, but isn't a robot that's being commanded to head out on a mission where it could kill just being given a longer lifetime to act?
You can bring up the choices robots have to attack or not based on what target it sees, but how is this different from existing CAPTOR mines that can ignore one type of ship and go after another?
I think this Pandora's box has already been open for a long time.
One of the problems that I have long had with the idea of robot soldiers is that it makes war too easy. When you have huge emotional and financial costs to war your government will think twice about either getting involved or at least be pressured into "Bringing the boys home." but if you are sending robot planes with loads of robot warriors, why not have a war, or two, or five? A bunch of dead dehumanized "others' is not so bad especially seeing that it generates jobs at homes and pork spending for politicians.
War is rarely the correct solution. In fact it it usually a clear sign of a long series of failures or the sign of a madman.
Plus robotic warriors are, for the next short while, going to be the plaything of western countries. But how long before some tin-pot nut job flies the same machines into NYC or LA? Or even a homebrew nutjob? Again the key is that the consequences are potentially far less for the perpetrator. You can't usefully arrest the bot. You mightn't even end up with the slightest clue who sent it. Again the same problem. This tool makes waging whatever stupid war that pops into your head too easy.
Robots have the potential to turn this planet into Utopia or into Distopia. I suspect that some governments are philosophically predisposed toward Utopia and others Distopia in regards to using robots wisely. A simple question: If your country can, using robots, vastly decrease the cost of running prisons will your country increase its incarceration rate?
Obsolete robots should be programmed to pace suspected minefields until their mechanisms wear out.
2 birds, 1 stone.
Add live streaming and betting pools, and it might even be profitable.
So you believe that the ONLY alternative to drone attacks is to convert to Sharia law?
False. I never said that. I said that failing to use drone attacks will result in conversion to Sharia.
Who, exactly, is going to impose Sharia law on the US? And I don't mean who would LIKE to. Who, exactly, has that capability?
Sharia is creeping in the West already as part of the 'cultural jihad'. Who is doing this? well, the UN for one, with the OIC setting the agenda in the HRC and other agencies. The Holy Land Foundation trial stated that the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood (who have influence in the OIC) is to sabotage the "miserable West by their own hand". And if you know what to look for they have been very successful so far. Do the research yourself and you will see. Sharia is already in the West. Instead of treating women and men equally the West now kowtows to Muslim demands for separate areas for men and women. Harvard gym excludes men at certain times so Muslim women can exercise. Newspapers now self-censor anything critical to Islam because the editors do not consider it worth their life to publish satirical cartoons. The whole of society is indoctrinated that to "cause offense" is a grave crime that should be a criminal offense - when in a multicultural society it is inevitable that some part of society will be offended by the views of some other part of society. After clear jihad attacks the President of the United States is afraid to use the words Islamic Terrorism and his government departments are *banned* from using that term and many others due to political correctness. In Britain jihadi protestors can threaten to behead westerners for telling the truth yet the police will arrest an 85 year old grandmother for cursing Islam. In at least 23 court cases in the US the Constitution has been pitted against Sharia and the Constitution has yielded thanks to activist judges. It has gotten so bad that Florida and Oklahoma had to pass the ALAC "American Laws for American Courts" bill to stamp the setting of precedents where Sharia trumped native law. Note also that the Obama Regime fought Oklahoma on this - which shows how subverted that Administration is. Sharia is already here, man. It is not total, but creeping. Slowly, slowly the world is being changed around you. You still think you have free speech? well if you are in Sweden or the US or Britain go to your town center and remonstrate against Islam. See how long it is until the police arrest you (hence unwittingly enforcing Sharia). Sharia is imposed in stages (doctrinally it is called the "Milestones " process). We've just got a little bit at the moment. Don't worry, the UN is slowly introducing more. As I attempted to explain for you (google the cases I presented, please).
How about you look up who has veto power at the UN. Here's a hint, the US is one of them. If we don't like it, we can veto it.
I suggest you learn how the UN works. The US veto is for Security Council Resolutions. All sorts of madness passes in the General Assembly, and even more madness in the HRC (now infested by human-rights enemies like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, North Korea). Sorry dude, with your statement you show you have a terrible understanding of the UN and what is going on in the world. No wonder you don't like my post, you simply have too little information to understand what I'm trying to say. If you have an open mind and follow my posts it would be my pleasure to expand your understanding of the political ideology called Islam, and how the political body called the OIC is using the UN to bypass the democratic safeguards in Free societies.
Exactly HOW is ANYONE going to replace any part of the US legal system or Constitution with Sharia law?
It's called "Case Law". By setting a precedent that trumps the Constitution with a Sharia-compatible ruling. This has been used by activists and the US Government for a long time, which allow
1: If you refer to your audience as sheep you immediately lose all credibility.
2: If you are the only one that sees the light and you've taken it upon yourself to spread your message to the masses, double check your work because it's incredibly improbable that you're more aware of both current and historical events than everyone else around you.
3: The most likely case is that you're wrong and basing your stance on emotion, feelings, and the opinions of others rather than the actual evidence.
Step back and ask yourself, does your fear of the UN stem from logic or faith? The clear answer is to ban religion from UN consideration, to hell with who ever it offends. Christians should be silenced just as Muslims. As men and women we can talk, but lets keep religious faith out of all government at all levels.