Only Twice Have Nations Banned a Weapon Before It Was Used; They May Do It Again

Lasrick writes: Seth Baum reports on international efforts to ban 'killer robots' before they are used. China, Israel, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States are apparently developing precursor technology. "Fully autonomous weapons are not unambiguously bad. They can reduce burdens on soldiers. Already, military robots are saving many service members' lives, for example by neutralizing improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan and Iraq. The more capabilities military robots have, the more they can keep soldiers from harm. They may also be able to complete missions that soldiers and non-autonomous weapons cannot." But Baum, who founded the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute, goes on to outline the potential downsides, and there are quite a few.

Comments

Dazzlers

[Okian Warrior]

Blinding weapons are banned? Not so.

From that article:

[...] a soldier he interviewed after an incident in Iraq a few years ago. While on duty, the soldier fumbled a dazzler he was trying to point at an oncoming vehicle a safe distance away. “He was in an awkward position and illuminated a rearview mirror in such a way that he got a beam directly back into the eye.” The beam had gone less than 6 metres when it hit the soldier in the centre of vision of his right eye, burning the retina and leaving his vision in that eye permanently damaged.

Yeah, right. Blinding lasers are banned from military use, except that the military uses them and (from the article) are being made available to police departments.

I'm missing something here - is it OK if it blinds soldiers so long as the *intent* is not to blind soldiers? Is the ban only for *combat* soldiers and not policing soldiers? Is it only banned in *declared wars*, and not *non-war military invasions*?

Can anyone explain why we use dazzlers when they appear to be on the banned list?

Re:Yes. Yes they are

[knightghost]

They've saved far more lives than they've taken.

A robot will be assumed to have much greater leeway to determine NOT to fire, versus today's trip wires and pressure plates.

Clickbait headline

[drcagn]

Is this going to be part of the new Slashdot too?

Re:Yes. Yes they are

[jklovanc]

I can name three countries that would not exist today without land mines;
1. South Korea
2. Taiwan
3. Israel
Used properly as by these three countries land mines are an equalizer. Used improperly as in South East Asia and Africa they are a menace.

Re:You are free to have killer robots

[LordWabbit2]

And yet we have them and they are largely, if not universally, obeyed
What the hell are you smoking? Not even the US follows the Geneva conventions.
Guantanamo bay, water boarding, drone strikes on vehicles with "suspected" terrorists without checking if there are children or other non combatants on board.
I personally think Killer Robot's might be better in the field than some dumb jock with a trigger happy finger, and I don't just lump the US into this category, it's been an on going issue for EVERY army. Friendly fire isn't.