 Editor in Chief Bill   | 31 Mar 2015 12:07 p.m. PST |
Writing in Proceedings magazine, Dave Majumdar concludes that… …it would seem that the U.S. government views the use of autonomous weapon systems as legal under the laws of war – provided certain conditions are met… The responsibility for the use of such a weapon would ultimately fall to the person who authorized its employment… Do you agree that autonomous weapons are currently legal under the international laws of war? |
| dsfrank | 31 Mar 2015 12:10 p.m. PST |
Seemed OK in the new Robocop movie – what could go wrong? |
| TNE2300 | 31 Mar 2015 12:27 p.m. PST |
I am unaware of any law that states they are illegal therefore… |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 31 Mar 2015 12:30 p.m. PST |
AI has not advanced to the degree at which the international community feels the need to address it with laws and regulations, but give it some time…. |
| Cacique Caribe | 31 Mar 2015 12:35 p.m. PST |
What's the difference between them and a booby trap? At least the autonomous* weapon can make rudimentary decisions, right? Dan
* And I wouldn't call radio-controlled weapons or drones autonomous. |
| Prof Pate | 31 Mar 2015 12:36 p.m. PST |
Great subject but really not qualified in laws governing war fighting. However given each nation's self interested definition then each would say yes or no according to their needs. Are there any truly autonomous systems? What counts?
Terminal guidance has been around for years so that's okay. Fire and forget same applies Drones are guided too so third party Automatic defence turrets react to threats as programmed. What sort of system are we talking about? A system which is given an obhective but decides own route, threats to neutralise at own 'discretion'? Interested to hear if such systems are effective enough to deploy operationally.
John FoA |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 31 Mar 2015 12:41 p.m. PST |
What sort of system are we talking about? A system which is given an objective but decides own route, threats to neutralise at own 'discretion'? I think the definition is based on this previous thread Bill posted TMP link. An autonomous stealth drone with strike capabilities that we can send behind enemy lines to loiter for long periods and programmed to make its own decisions as to when (and where) to strike. Probably more science fiction than fact right now, but who knows? |
| Rod I Robertson | 31 Mar 2015 12:57 p.m. PST |
Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) are neither legal nor illegal right now as there is little or no jurisprudence on which to base legal judgements. Only when injured parties start suing and states start making legislation or treaties, will a body of laws begin to emerge. The fastest way to trigger this process is for interested citizens to make their own LAWS to attack the postman, dog-catcher, local sherif, or minister and then the following litigation will begin the ball rolling! : )
However even when clear rules exist, nations often ignore them by redefining the illegal action. So torture becomes enhanced interrogation methods and soldiers wearing civilian clothes while fighting becomes non-conventional uniforms. So I expect to hear that LAWS are renamed "stand-off independant kinetic persuasion software actuators" and then everything will be fine.
Rod Robertson. |
| 15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 31 Mar 2015 1:07 p.m. PST |
Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) are neither legal nor illegal right now as there is little or no jurisprudence on which to base legal judgements. Rod is right. It's simply that a legal precedent hasn't been set yet. Just give it some time. |
| Cacique Caribe | 31 Mar 2015 1:16 p.m. PST |
A conveniently one-sided video clip on social media (edited to show only the "brutal" effectiveness) will suffice to make them illegal. Dan |
| boy wundyr x | 31 Mar 2015 1:24 p.m. PST |
|
| Editor in Chief Bill | 31 Mar 2015 4:13 p.m. PST |
Are there any truly autonomous systems? What counts? The Aegis system in its full automatic mode engages targets without human intervention. |
| Katzbalger | 31 Mar 2015 4:18 p.m. PST |
Well, land mines are still mostly legal (except by those that signed that silly Princess Di treaty) and would meet the normal definition of an autonomous weapon (unless they are command detonated, of course). Rob |
| Rrobbyrobot | 31 Mar 2015 7:04 p.m. PST |
While I am no legal scholar I live my life according to a simple principle that where no law specifically forbids a thing or action it is then permissible. I've never been arrested in my life so it must be ok.
That having been said, if there is no law forbidding such weapons they should then be quite within bounds. |
 etotheipi  | 01 Apr 2015 5:31 a.m. PST |
The Aegis system in its full automatic mode engages targets without human intervention. Aegis requires a massive manpower input to set it up and configure it into automatic mode as well as constant monitoring while it runs like that. Lots of engineers, warfighters, remote connections, database refinements and changes. Once again, there is no such thing as an autonomous weapon system. We can move the operators around in time and space, but not remove them. |
| Weasel | 01 Apr 2015 8:36 a.m. PST |
Whether or not they get outlawed by international treaty, the big countries will stockpile the stuff in any event, along with all the junk everyone agreed not to use. |
| etotheipi | 01 Apr 2015 9:44 a.m. PST |
Whether or not they get outlawed by international treaty, the big countries will stockpile the stuff in any event The "big countries" generally, at least on the NATO side, do not have stockpiles of illegal weapons. They all do have controlled inventories, because "everyone" did not agree not to use them. One of the notable outcomes of these controlled inventories is the use of pyridostigmine, that contributes to Gulf War Syndrome in veterans instead of massive Gulf War deaths due to sarin exposure. |
