"Are Autonomous Weapons Unsporting?" Topic

Writing in Proceedings magazine, Dave Majumbar notes:

…any time new weapon technology emerges, there is opposition from those who believe that the technology fundamentally unbalances war…

Would autonomous weapon systems be unfair or unsporting?

"Unbalances war"?! It isn't meant to be balanced. The more out of balance, the less likely we are to have it. And that's a good thing.

I've noticed that a lot of the laws of warfare seem to make it very hard for a small, poor nation to successfully protect itself from a large, rich nation.

Guns are unsporting, at least according to those that favored bows.

They even disliked crossbows.

War, by necessity needs to be unfair, and unsporting, since otherwise you just kill off each other equally, leading to a huge battle of attrition, with the only determinant being the side with the most people wins.

In an ideal conflict, the other side never has a chance.

As in any form if novel, asymmetric warfare they are never unsporting if we use them, only if they are used against us

War is not a sport. It should not be seen as such. I should very much hope the side I'm on remembers this at all times and in all circumstances. Else we shall be defeated. But do let our enemies be very sporting fellows. Right to their very end.
To my mind war has just one rule to always remember…WIN!!!

Would autonomous weapon systems be unfair or unsporting?

I certainly hope so.

People who treat war as a sport tend to lose.

I suspect these are the usual "useful idiots" who protest every time the West gains a technological advantage over its opponents (eg all the protests in Europe over the neutron bomb which would have overcome the Warsaw Pact's numerical advantages in aircraft and tanks).

'em.

I don't believe unsporting is a term valid when discussing warfare. However, US Grant in the ACW, understood the quicker you defeat the enemy and end the war. The better as if only for the reason, that in the long run less losses will be incurred, etc. … That being said, the use of "land mines", IIRC, they called them something else back then, was pretty much "outlawed". So to speak by the combatants on both sides, for a number of reasons …

War is a sport, but only on the tabletop. I would only play people who are good 'sportsmen.'

Land mines, poison gas and such are only outlawed if the down side for the user is serious. No one ever outlawed tanks, except for civilians.

Land mines have the serious problem that they don't deactivate when the war is over.

Unsporting? What!?!?!? Seriously? Does that really matter? Is our need to win "potential"* public opinion points that strong that we end up protecting our enemy more than protecting our own?

Are we still in the 18th century?

YouTube link

Dan
*Try as we might, we're still going to be Satan, even though we don't behead our defeated enemies on the spot, rape their women, etc. In fact, being sportsmanlike is viewed by the enemy as a weakness – as a sign of our vanity and our overwhelming need to be liked by all, and our arrogant need to show the entire world that we're the model of the values and civilized behavior all should follow.
And as for the true support from our own civilians, all it takes is a short video clip to go viral, showing what a normal battle looks like after we win the field, for our own media and institutions to star callin us the barbarians.

Anyone who purposely designed a "fair" or "sporting" weapon would deserve to be shot.

As a retired SEAL Admiral once told me, our goal is to bring overwhelming firepower to every fight so the outcome is assured. If that includes autonomous weapons, so be it.

Caveman 1:
Must protect family from enemy clan. Make many traps around cave entrance.

Caveman 2:
Not seem fair!

Caveman 1:
What about using tribe-raised wolves to guard? Must protect women and little ones!!!

Caveman 2:
Not seem fair!

Caveman 1:
Hmm. We take women and little ones secret place. YOU stay protect cave!

Caveman 2:
Wait! Not seem fair!!!!

Dan

Unsporting makes me think of a 19th century British officer drinking his claret in the mess. Unsporting – A concept that died many many years ago.

"Are Autonomous Weapons Unsporting?"

Yes, definitely. It's bad enough shooting grouse with a cruise missile; using one that makes its own decisions puts you completely beyond the pale.

Just something else on a battlefield to blow up, send HARM strikes to the controller cubicles, have drone destroyer machines/units et cetera.

Don't get to say what I've said in every other autonomous weapons threads because I heartily agree with all the above opinions questioning the validity of the word "sporting" with respect to warfare.

The quote mentions nothing about "sporting" but "unbalancing".
I suppose the international community favors equal points balanced war?

Fair…the cry of the loser. The way to prevent war is to make sure the enemy knows he has no chance. Sporting doesn't do that so a lot of blood gets spilled. Wargames are games-period! Tin soldiers don't bleed, suffer or die; real men in real war do.

One of the first things a drill instructor has to get fair, sporting and dueling out of a recruit's mind and reactions. Otherwise they won't survive a modern battlefield.

The feather head who wrote that article doesn't have any real world experience.

I suspect these are the usual "useful idiots" who protest every time the West gains a technological advantage over its opponents (eg all the protests in Europe over the neutron bomb which would have overcome the Warsaw Pact's numerical advantages in aircraft and tanks).

Given that the Chinese developed a neutron bomb in the same timeframe as "the west" did, you can't actually say "the west" had a "technological advantage" in that case.

nationalinterest.org/feature/unlocking-the-puzzle-china's-neutron-bomb-12124

The more out of balance, the less likely we are to have it.

Forgotten about MAD Doctrine have we. The "Balance of Terror" perhaps.

Logic and history suggest that when a group has a perceived or actual advantage over others, they have a tendency to use that advantage.

As Madeleine Albright once said to Colin Powell:
"What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

@Astronicus,

Actually, the French were more-or-less in synch, but the Chinese were about 5-10 years behind and the Soviets about 10. The Chinese version was unlikely to be of any concern to NATO – it was the advantage it gave us over the Soviet Union that upset the tree-huggers.

The "property before people" propaganda campaign waged by Soviet-funded/maniplated left-wing groups in the US and Europe was several years before the Chinese version was even tested. Ironically, the West quickly moved on to other ideas (eg Star Wars), such that only the Soviets ever actually deployed this type of weapon in Europe (many of which have since ended up in the hands of the Russians).

link

This CND website illustrates my point (see penultimate paragraph of the main text re The Neutron Bomb). This typically one-eyed view of reality led such organisations to delude themselves into thinking that (a) they altered NATO policy, and (b) taking away NATO's ability to stop the Warsaw Pact's enormous tank armies made war LESS likely.

cnduk.org/about/item/437