Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Chiefs Fear Advanced Robot Weapons Wiping Out Humanity (mirror.co.uk)
Longtime reader schwit1 writes: Huge technological leaps forward in drones, artificial intelligence and autonomous weapon systems must be addressed before humanity is driven to extinction, say chiefs of Pentagon
From a report: Air Force General Paul Selva, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the US Defense Department, said so-called thinking weapons could lead to: "Robotic systems to do lethal harm... a Terminator without a conscience." When asked about robotic weapons able to make their own decisions, he said: "Our job is to defeat the enemy" but "it is governed by law and by convention." He says the military insists on keeping humans in the decision-making process to "inflict violence on the enemy. [...] That ethical boundary is the one we've draw a pretty fine line on. It's one we must consider in developing these new weapons," he added. Selva said the Pentagon must reach out to artificial intelligence tech firms that are not necessarily "military-oriented" to develop new systems of command and leadership models, reports US Naval Institute News .
From a report: Air Force General Paul Selva, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the US Defense Department, said so-called thinking weapons could lead to: "Robotic systems to do lethal harm... a Terminator without a conscience." When asked about robotic weapons able to make their own decisions, he said: "Our job is to defeat the enemy" but "it is governed by law and by convention." He says the military insists on keeping humans in the decision-making process to "inflict violence on the enemy. [...] That ethical boundary is the one we've draw a pretty fine line on. It's one we must consider in developing these new weapons," he added. Selva said the Pentagon must reach out to artificial intelligence tech firms that are not necessarily "military-oriented" to develop new systems of command and leadership models, reports US Naval Institute News .
Another, and I think larger, problem with the increased use of technology rather than human boots-on-the-ground is that it makes it easier, from a political standpoint, to go to war. You don't have mothers, fathers, and spouses of all those people being put in harms way making trouble because their loved ones are dying. This is one reason I'm a fan of bringing back the draft, without all the loopholes that allowed rich-white-boys (I'm looking at YOU, W!) to dodge serving. If your constituents have skin in the game, it's harder to vote on a war resolution.
Yeah, people frequently quote facts like "Russia or the US has enough nukes to destroy the world 5 times over".
Even if that is true, they won't have the ability to fire all of them- they'll send off a dozen before all their launch sites would be nuked by the enemy. Even if they fired all of them- they're not going to fire them to cover the surface area of the earth, they're going to fire multiple at strategic sites.
Po Dunk, West Dakota, is not going to be a target. It makes no sense sending a $x-zillion rocket to target a town with a population of 700. Rural areas all around the world wouldn't be hit.
There would be survivors of any nuclear conflict. Maybe millions of survivors. It would suck to be a survivor, life would be really hard under a nuclear winter with all distribution networks destroyed. Humanity would survive though at a much diminished rate.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch