Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia Says It Will Ignore Any UN Ban of Killer Robots (ibtimes.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the fingers-in-your-ears dept.

According a report from Defense One, a United Nations meeting in Geneva earlier this month on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) was derailed when Russia said they would not adhere to any prohibitions on killer robots. "The U.N. meeting appeared to be undermined both by Russia's disinterest in it and the framework of the meeting itself," reports International Business Times. "Member nations attempted to come in and define what LAWS' systems would be, and what restrictions could be developed around autonomous war machines, but no progress was made." From the report: In a statement, Russia said that the lack of already developed war machines makes coming up with prohibitions on such machines difficult. "According to the Russian Federation, the lack of working samples of such weapons systems remains the main problem in the discussion on LAWS... this can hardly be considered as an argument for taking preventive prohibitive or restrictive measures against LAWS being a by far more complex and wide class of weapons of which the current understanding of humankind is rather approximate," read the statement.

73 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Just like anything the UN manadates by Virtucon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a nation truly wants to ignore the UN, it can ignore it. The repercussions for Russia are negligible because they're on the Security Council as a permanent member, they'll veto any resolutions that have any teeth attempting to sanction them.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I doubt you can "kick off" a permanent member.

    2. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by crunchygranola · · Score: 4, Informative

      China is still a permanent member. It was never kicked off at any time.

      What did happen was that the UN switched which government was recognized as representing the state of China. Instead of considering the government of the island of Taiwan as representing the entire nation of China, in 1971 the UN switched to recognizing the government of the entire nation of China, except Taiwan. But there has always been a permanent seat for China.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    3. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If every country agrees to not honor their veto they are essentially kicked off.
      Another way could be for everyone else to start a new UN with blackjack and hookers.

      Either way would be contrary to the purpose of the UN.

      The UN is often described as toothless because of the veto situation, but it was created in a political climate where countries would stop talking to each other and go to war instead.
      The purpose of the UN is to have a forum where dialogue can continue between counties even during a world war so that there at least is a chance to resolve matters without killing everyone.
      For that to be possible it is necessary that those counties feel that it doesn't put them at disadvantage.
      The veto ensures a toothlessness that is necessary for UN to perform its function.

      For a similar reason you often see members of the Human Rights Council that you would typically not associate human rights.
      The purpose of this is to put them in a position where they have to assign a person that has to take a lead in improving human rights and they will do so from the perspective of their own culture.
      This does a lot more to help their people than someone from another culture on the other side of the planet telling them what they should do.

      There might be a need for an organization that plays harder with misbehaving countries, but it would be a mistake to transform UN into that organization because then it wouldn't be able to fulfill its current role.

    4. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You act like that's a bad thing. If anything were binding you'd see plenty of states trying to use the UN as a cudgel, as in "Me and this army" types of approaches. Most countries don't have the political will for such things to begin with and even if enough did, the UN would tear itself apart in short order and likely lead to large scale conflict, the type of thing it was meant to prevent.

      It's far better that it's utterly toothless. At least it allows the world's countries to come together and air their grievances before everyone else.

    5. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      It sounds like they'll support said ban, and then ignore it for the upper edge.

      Not that they'll veto it.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re: Just like anything the UN manadates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Its to prevent MAD from actually taking place. That's why permanent members all have fancy nukes. You don't want these guys starting another world war.

    7. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      Indeed sir, or madam... although the venue might indicate a predisposition to the former.

      The mere fact that a League of Nations could even survive our propensity for tribal warfare between countries, derived of little more than political lines in the earth, it is encouraging.

      Diplomacy must remain at arm's length from armed combat, and even if the exercise at times feels toothless, men playing at peace is infinitely an improvement over men playing at war.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by KiloByte · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Doesn't sound like it's working. Case in point: there's a Hitler-style war going on right now: concentration camps, mass-bombing civilian cities with no military presence whatsoever, etc. And US and UK are helping.

      And, do you even hear a word about Yemen in the news? Likewise, the Wikipedia article has a table of "alleged" war crimes that lists a bunch of one- or two-digit incidents, without a mention of those with thousands.

      Or, when Georgia and Ukraine got invaded by their neighbour bloody dictator, did the US and UK (who even made such a promise in return for Ukraine getting rid of nuclear weapons) intervene?

      Sorry, but the UN is toothless. It plays no useful role.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    9. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a self-serving bullshit after-the-fact justification of an organization that has long outlived its purpose. The UN was a good idea decades ago but it's a joke now and needs to be disbanded.

      This does a lot more to help their people than someone from another culture on the other side of the planet telling them what they should do.

      Funny, this is what the UN does to America (and Israel) and yet nobody apparently has any problem with that. It's only when countries that treat women and non-Muslims horribly have it done to them that's a problem, apparently.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re: Just like anything the UN manadates by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      "Mr. President, we must not allow a minesW*W*W*W*killer-robot gap!"

      Its to prevent MAD from actually taking place. That's why permanent members all have fancy nukes. You don't want these guys starting another world war.

      Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

      That's exactly the primary purpose it was created. To prevent another world war now that WMDs existed. The pictures of the unprecedented devastation were still fresh and new from Nagasaki and Hiroshima, horribly burnt and radiation-sick survivors of the initial blast still dying in numbers, and it shocked the world to the core.

      Certainly, the UN does more than this and it's only common sense to get nations communicating and peacefully cooperating as much as possible given such an opportunity.

      What many are not aware of is the existence of a global economic "MAD". The idea roughly being to tie international finances, banking, and currencies together with each trading nation's so that even if one power destroys another while suffering little loss, like an overwhelming and rapid pinpoint nuclear first-strike, the 'winning' nation's economy, currency, etc will collapse, likely along with many other nation's.

      This incentivizes all nations, even ones not directly involved, to do what they can to maintain global peace.

      The problem with *that* being it assumes all nations will run their economies, currencies, financial markets, etc etc in a sane and logical manner and politics & ideology will never cause a nation to tank themselves like Greece. If things go sideways in the EU and the Euro/markets crash there, Hong Kong will likely quickly follow and then the US.

      Then, it gets ugly.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    11. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Boy, the really troubling part is how you people are just *chomping at the bit* for a big shooting war with Russia. WTF? Trump is a dangerous warmonger, let's replace him and so they he can stop holding us back from the war we so greatly desire?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People reading this should note that this account is an infrequent poster, who basically focuses all posts on trolling with pro-russia or anti-US comments. Don't fall for propaganda.

    13. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I believe there is plenty of evidence over decades that the MASSIVE drop in the total number of wars on the planet is directly a result of the UN brining nations together to talk first and shoot second. Did it end war? No. Did it reduce it substantially? Yes, OMG, yes.

      Presenting an argument that the UN is responsible for the drop is a huge undertaking, beyond the scope of this comment. Sorry, I cannot cite sources for that aspect, but I beg you to go research the history and impact of just meeting to talk and do nothing has had on incident after incident. The drop in wars and violence is well documented. This site has one of the most complete set of graphs and cited data on the matter that I know of: https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace/

    14. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a self-serving bullshit after-the-fact justification of an organization that has long outlived its purpose.

      Sounds like you're unable to actually counter any of the logical, factual points made.

    15. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Comrade, i don't care if Russia occupied Crimea and i don't care if Russia occupies eastern Ukraine. Afterall, Ukraine is already colonized by the Russians, America shouldn't care about it. But the Russians shouldn't have shot down an European passenger plane. So, tell your owners, watch their missiles.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    16. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      They probably haven't. The way I see it they have lent a SAM to unqualified people - these who have served in the Soviet Army would have been over 40 and at that time, having lost their skills and these who have served later - the Ukrainian Air Defence training was, well, lacking. It is generally not a good idea to give modern weapons to monkeys.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    17. Re: Just like anything the UN manadates by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      We could start a conversation with Kim Jong Un about nukes-n-missiles-n-other-fun-stuff by voting him in as head of the human rights council, ala Gaddafi.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    18. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...nukes that Saddam was proven to have?

      Who said Saddam had nukes? I remember the "slam dunk" on WMDs. I remember intel that said they had a nuclear weapons program in the 80s. I don't remember anyone claiming proof that Iraq had nukes.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    19. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by DarthVain · · Score: 2

      "the veto ensures a toothlessness that is necessary for UN to perform its function", never heard it put that way, but it makes sense at least in a historical context.

      At any rate, I see Russia's response as a pretty reasonable one. You can't ban something that doesn't actually exist yet. Even harder is to define exactly what that thing actually is without it actually existing. Depending on how nebulous your wording of what constitutes "autonomous" that could mean any number of things. I know we're all thinking of some Matrix AI type thing, but the reality is no government is going to hand over control like that of any significant military asset like that. This could however impact technologies that say do target identification, and the like. Not all of it scary bad stuff either, when you think about all the friendly fire issues in the modern military past. The technologies could actually *save* lives.

    20. Re:Just like anything the UN manadates by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that the existence of two superpowers at odds with each other, who had to keep wars small for fear of nuclear annihilation, for most of the second half of the 20th century did a lot to keep casualties down. American force projection especially was fairly important. The UN almost certainly played a role, but the Pax Americana is/was a fairly good explanation as well.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  2. So in other words... by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

    Russia says, "STFU. We WILL build killer robots. Sooner the better!"

    1. Re:So in other words... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm guessing the Russians aren't even going to bother building these robots themselves.

      The Russians might just wait until the US creates an army of killer robots, then hack into them and turn them against their owners. This strategy has already worked great when it was applied to our election system.

    2. Re:So in other words... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Seem pretty obvious the outcome would be like millions of mayflies with ak-47ks vs 10 million USD mini-sats with lasers or whatever. (maybe that actually is a good idea.. And my whole post is incorrect because of course the US would mount guns on that dog and such..)

    3. Re:So in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Russians might just wait until the US creates an army of killer robots, then hack into them and turn them against their owners.

      No hacking required. If Futurama has taught me anything, it is that a robot will kill its creator and master for a bottle of vodka.

    4. Re:So in other words... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Are you implying the result of the past election is detrimental to US interests?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    5. Re:So in other words... by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      And when inevitably the killer robots run amok, or there needs to be a false flag operation, foreign adversaries will make convenient scapegoats too. Start a narrative based on the most flimsiest of evidence and have your puppet news media relentlessly promote it, and in no time at all useful idiots will speak of it in de facto terms.

  3. Translation: They have a LAW program nearly ready by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It almost sounds like Russia might not want to ban the weapon they have been developing. Or, the headline and summary are complete bullshit. That happens a lot on Slashdot, misleading clickbait headlines.

  4. Ottawa Treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    LAWS should have the same sort of restrictions as mines (and other lethal non-autonomous weapons systems). However Russia isn't a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty either (along with China, India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the US)

  5. Re:And why would they? by sexconker · · Score: 1, Informative

    Going to? Obama was jerking off every night with the hand-me-down drones.

  6. Ironic acronym by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    lethal autonomous weapons systems)

    Does anyone really feel strongly that these advances in autonomous robotics will not be exploited militarily for the extracurricular shortening of human life?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  7. Isaac sheds a tear, bless him wherever he is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    In all common sense this dispute comes to simple sane programming for autonomous devices. And Isaac Asimov's brilliant but simple rules of robotics. If these rules are broken so eventually will we lose control of them as AI becomes truly fully autonomous. But then again when in history of human conflict has war been a sane endeavor. Perhaps if their really are aliens watching us progress in silence then what they are waiting for is us as a species to evolve beyond war. It is perhaps the only way we can live off this planet instead of our infantile visions of Star Wars and galactic aggressiveness being a universal problem.

    As we reach the end of the level of population that this planet will support we either learn to live and work together or we are doomed as a species and will be replaced.

    1. Re:Isaac sheds a tear, bless him wherever he is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As we reach the end of the level of population that this planet will support we either learn to live and work together or we are doomed as a species and will be replaced.

      Or the birth rates levels off, which I believe is currently happening.

  8. The problem with killer robots.... by mark-t · · Score: 2

    ... is that once all you have are robots fighting other robots, there is no loss of life and so no reason for one side to surrender.

    Such a war could well last until the end of time.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:The problem with killer robots.... by networkBoy · · Score: 2

      resource depletion.
      It would become the new form of the castle siege.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:The problem with killer robots.... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      ... is that once all you have are robots fighting other robots, there is no loss of life and so no reason for one side to surrender.

      Such a war could well last until the end of time.

      Such a war would lack the horrors of war. Which is the problem of course. Wars need loss of life, horrific atrocities and anything else terrible to encourages both sides to negotiate. Robot wars would be pretty boring, they wouldn't last until the end of time either. People would realize they're not getting anywhere with just robots and start putting humans back in harms way to tip the balance back in their favor, then the other side does the same. Then we get the horrors of war, which will mean it will end eventually.

      Be better of course to just do away with war entirely. Hopeful!

    3. Re:The problem with killer robots.... by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      If no one is dying, who cares if the conflict goes on and on and on? I suppose there's an obvious economic hit to both sides as resources are devoted away from whatever else they would normally be used for in order to build more robots, but you have to compare that to the economic hit that already exists from human armies merely existing as well as the loss of human life that they invariably lead to in some capacity. If that's economically cheaper, then I don't see a reason why we should care.

      There will always be conflict, it's in our nature. If you can ultimately make war incredibly civilized, there's very little reason not to. Ultimately I think any such attempts would be futile as if you're willing to fight the kind of war that doesn't result in any human casualties because it's so damned civilized, there's not a lot of incentive to ever surrender because there's no penalty for losing if the robots won't actually kill any people.

    4. Re:The problem with killer robots.... by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      Could you imagine how much better Vietnam would be right now if instead of massacres, and toxins, and armies rolling back and forth, they instead still had hordes of killer robots fighting?

      Or all of the land between Germany and Russia if instead of millions being killed in the war, there were still hordes of killer robots?

      Tl;Dr
      War sucks, endless war with no soldier deaths probably sucks more.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re: The problem with killer robots.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would be even worse. Robots cost more $$$ than humans (usually). Remember war is about $ not human rights.

    6. Re:The problem with killer robots.... by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Insightful.

      Yet, all war is in some form, resource depletion... it'll simply last longer if the resources are alternatives to human death.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    7. Re:The problem with killer robots.... by JustNiz · · Score: 2

      Its not new form at all. Resource depletion has always been and still is exactly what decides which side wins wars, ever since since the beginning of time.

      Usually the resource is money in the form of superior tech and sheer volume of supplies, and just the size of your mass of people that are prepared to line up and be cannon-fodder.

      PErfect example is how the Soviets took back Stalingrad in WW2. The Nazis were encircled and firing 1200 rounds a minute from each of hundreds of strategically placed and dug-in MG42 belt-fed machine guns, at a never-ending surge of Russians that had one bolt-action rifle and 6 bullets between every 2 soldiers, yet the Russians still won.

    8. Re:The problem with killer robots.... by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      My reference was to the siege, not that resource depletion was a new thing.
      In a traditional siege it was simply waiting out the opponent's stored provisions, there was little (if any) direct combat. a fully automated war would bring us back to little if any (human) direct combat, so would be again like a siege. Not the best analogy, but I think serviceable.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    9. Re:The problem with killer robots.... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Robot wars would be pretty boring

      It's not the same without Craig Charles.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:The problem with killer robots.... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Human leaders don't care about the horrors of war. They are frequently psychopathic types.

    11. Re:The problem with killer robots.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It won't be that neat and tidy. ICBMs and hypersonic missiles area already impossible to reliably shoot down. The robots will target humans more than other robots, simply because the other robots will be too stealthy or too fast to do much about. It won't be like Terminator, it will be you sitting in your office writing code for a military asset management system and suddenly it explodes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:The problem with killer robots.... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a Star Trek episode.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    13. Re:The problem with killer robots.... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      So there were no armies, agent orange, or massacres?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  9. This is a good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is a good thing - or rather, it could have been much worse.

    Anyone remember the Washington Naval Treaty? World powers sign agreement to limit the size of battleships, and several powers secretly ignored it, most notably Japan. This arguably contributed to the length of the Pacific theatre as the US had to play a little more catch-up than they otherwise would have.

    At least Russia is being upfront about it.

  10. Re:If only we relied on good old fashioned dumb bo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only difference between a cruise missile and a drone is that the drone comes back. I'm not really sure what the uproar over killer drones are.

    Then pay closer attention to the word "autonomous". Both the cruise missile and the drone have a human being who decides what the target is. An *autonomous* drone picks its own target.

  11. joshua by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    is ok just as long as it can't launch missiles.

  12. Too Late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There already are "killer robots". What do you call a Tomahawk cruise missile that can fly hundreds of miles and independently identify it's target then dive in and blow up. What do you call an AEGIS cruiser in full "auto" mode that identifies threats and fires off missiles as required to neutralize them. The only thing worth discussing is exactly how much automation would be permitted.

    1. Re:Too Late by rapjr · · Score: 2

      Russia's fighters can be flown by remote control. With all the sensors and computers on board a fighter it would seem possible to turn it into an autonomous weapon. The first use of small, cheap autonomous weapons that can track specific individuals will certainly change the landscape. Big autonomous weapons either already exist or just require a software upgrade. If software is the only difference then verification of any treaty becomes almost impossible (maybe spies could detect field tests? Maybe not, just put a pilot/operator in place and have them do nothing or pretend to operate the system.) Without verification is there any other way to control these kinds of munitions? Maybe capturing failed devices that are still intact, reverse engineering them, putting the results on public display, and applying sanctions based on that? Who built the device could be anonymized, but it at least raises the bar of difficulty. Maybe simple methods of blinding sensors+cameras/radios could make autonomous weapons less useful and higher cost, deterring their use? In some sense this isn't a new problem, a weapon with a pilot is essentially an autonomous weapon run by a meat computer (e.g., a person with a gun). The main differences on the horizon are cheapness, smallness, being able to fly, and targeting improvements. Disrupt one or several of those factors and they become less effective or more costly to build. Strong air jets strategically placed inside buildings could perhaps prevent drones from flying indoors without having much effect on people.

    2. Re:Too Late by aliquis · · Score: 1

      But those missiles look nothing like terminator!
      They are missiles!

      Missiles are ok!
      Terminator is a scary future! ..

    3. Re:Too Late by mrwireless · · Score: 4, Informative

      Samsung sells the SGR-A1 machine gun sentry bot that has a fully autonomous mode, meaning it kills anything that comes in front of it.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      South Korea uses it at the border with North Korea.

    4. Re:Too Late by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      There already are "killer robots".

      Came here to say this. There was even (at least) one for strategic nuclear weapons, developed by the USSR. Supposedly, it is still around but switched off. This makes the irony of "We have to build a weapons system in order to ban it" even more apparent.

      Furthermore, any nation-state with a decent hacker cadre already has "Lethal Automated Weapons Systems." If a hack can kill someone, it's a lethal system. Any code monkey can take an existing hack and automate the trigger. All that is open to debate is whether it's a "weapon," and if a hack is designed to kill someone, I think that's self-evident.

      The only thing worth discussing is exactly how much automation would be permitted.

      +1 Insightful.

  13. Re:If only we relied on good old fashioned dumb bo by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    AC re I'm not really sure what the uproar over killer drones are.

    Think of it terms of US mil success in Vietnam.
    Remove the refugees to camps and try and win the hearts and minds of people kept in camps.
    The rest of a nation becomes an autonomous drone patrolled free fire zone.

    All the good people are in camps. Only bad people move around outside camps and the autonomous drones will find them all.
    A new look Second Boer War idea to sweep a country bare of everything that could give sustenance to bad people using autonomous drones rather than risking troops.

    US directive 3000.09 has some of the thinking from the US about autonomous weapon systems https://cryptome.org/dodi/dodd...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  14. Shocked I say . SHOCKED ! by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Show of hands . . . .

    Who here believes ANY COUNTRY is going to adhere to a " terminator " ban ?

    I'm pretty sure none of them will. . . . . they just won't be as blatant about it :D

    1. Re:Shocked I say . SHOCKED ! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      Who here believes ANY COUNTRY is going to adhere to a " terminator " ban ?

      It seems Namibia and Mauritania do adhere to the ban.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  15. Re:And why would they? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    I'm no great of fan of his by upping Bush's drone and special forces strikes against Islamists was one of the few things he did I liked.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  16. This has to go in stages by shayd2 · · Score: 2
    Step 1: Use mustard gas

    Step 2: Ban chemical weapons

    Step 3: Build large supplies of VX "just in case"

    Upshot-- Buy stock in robotics companies

  17. Re:And why would they? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Whom did Frankenstein kill first, and why?

  18. Re:And why would they? by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

    No one. He robbed graves. His Creature on the other hand....

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  19. So according to Russian logic ... by quax · · Score: 1

    ... we first have to build the Terminator so that we understand how to regulate it.

  20. Re:And why would they? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Frankenstein killed his creator's son first, then it got worse.

  21. weak argument, but interesting by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Has any non-existing weapon ever been banned?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re: weak argument, but interesting by superwiz · · Score: 1

      And they are banned, I take it. If they have never been deployed, how is it known that they work? Was there a full test of the weapon?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  22. Re:And why would they? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

    Frankenstein is the *doctor*. The Creature has no name. Colloquially, it is "Frankenstein's Monster".

  23. Re:Translation: They have a LAW program nearly rea by gravewax · · Score: 2

    seems more like they have looked at the ridiculousness of what was proposed and said... yeah no, count us out! Seems about as well thought out as Elon Musks comments on AI or that the planet Nibiru will crash into the earth. they don't even have a proper definition of what constitutes LAWS, but whatever definition the UN comes up with you can also guarantee it will exclude all current autonomous or remote weapons systems as neither the US nor any major power is going to start dismantling cruise missles, UAV's etc etc.

  24. honesty by Tom · · Score: 1

    At least they say it openly.

    You think any UN treaty would stop the US military? The only effect would be that the research is done secretly. You simply cannot afford to not have these things, at least on paper, when the enemy potentially does.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  25. It is reason to be proud by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 1

    Since 1991 I've seldom felt so proud of my country.
    as when reading this news.

  26. Of course killer robots will happen by Archon · · Score: 2

    Anyone who thinks differently is deluding themselves into thinking this world is something it's not. In war, it's the winner who gets to write the rules, and in war for survival, any country is going to use every resource humanly possible to do so.

  27. Criminals always ignore authority by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    This is no different that a bunch of legislators passing yet another gun control measure.

  28. Humans will be targeted by huckamania · · Score: 1

    The first country will build a robot to kill the humans in the opposing army. Eventually they will justify the killing of civilians using one of the typical excuses like destroying their will to continue the war or that the civilians are aiding the war effort.

    Except for chemical weapons, every weapon ever invented has been used to kill civilians (and Saddam may have crossed the line on that one).