Spend a Lot of Time at Free Republic?
Get a Lot of Information?
Donate what you can afford
Or sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will donate $10
Urgent: Save Lazamataz! Donate today
Posted on 04/19/2011 6:17:42 AM PDT by Immerito
The growing use of unmanned aircraft in combat situations raises huge moral and legal issues, and threatens to make war more likely as armed robots take over from human beings, according to an internal study by the Ministry of Defence.
The report warns of the dangers of an "incremental and involuntary journey towards a Terminator-like reality", referring to James Cameron's 1984 movie, in which humans are hunted by robotic killing machines. It says the pace of technological development is accelerating at such a rate that Britain must quickly establish a policy on what will constitute "acceptable machine behaviour".
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Sorry, John and Sarah were killed while trying to cross the border into Mexico by MS-13 thugs.
Somehow, I am not having much of an ethical problem with killing those whose only goal in life is to murder innocents in order to foment terror. I don’t care if we eliminate terrorists by using drones, snipers, hand grenades, or nuclear weapons.
I told him that the UAS was, without a doubt the most dangerous weapon system ever developed. When he asked why I referred to “On War” and asked about he quote that war is a political act. When he agreed, I asked him what restraints on the political decision to wage war did UAS remove.
After a moment of silence I then asked how fast would a politician start a war if he didn't have to worry about friendly force KIA, WIA, MIA.
When his paper was “published” at Maxwell AFB he lead with my quote.
“Given that war is a political act, then UAS are the most dangerous weapon system ever developed because they will remove the last remaining restraint on a politician’s tendency to wage unnecessary wars”.
Today's headlines seem to have validated that statement.
Enough said.
The potential for misuse of this technology remains. Nip gave several reasons in post (#3).
I’ll give another: If, in the hypothetical future, American human soldiers are told to fire upon conservatives, they may balk at firing against their own people.
Robot soldiers, having neither emotions nor a conscience, would have no scruples.
Ping -
What were we discussing last week?
Regards,
>>It says the pace of technological development is accelerating at such a rate ...<<
People really have no clue what we are in for. And this is not just about war machines. It is literally about insects with camera and microphone implants. It is about things we cannot even yet imagine.
The world of the last three Star Wars movies can not happen because man would kill himself in ways that could not even be imagined when people said the same about nuclear weapons. If the Lord waits another hundred years, there will be no human race left to save.
I say this as someone who used to absolutely love technology. However, as I carry the progress forward in everything from cell-phones to OBD VI (to OBD 30), the ability to audio and video record EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE and call up the recording you want with simple programs, the total and utter loss of ALL privacy of any kind, the progression of video games, very soon to, in spirit at least, compare to the Holodeck in Star Treck TNG.
And on and on. The more you realize just how many advances we have today that were unthinkable just 20 years ago, and that the pace of technological advancement continues to accelerate exponentially...well, you get my drift. I would really like to think it is utterly benign and only makes life better, as the invention of the car, toaster and washing machine did. However, anyone who has gotten a red light ticket in the mail knows that is not how it will end.
I’ve spent a lot of time contemplating what past inventions have lead to, especially the things unanticipated. There is a reason that Sci-fi movies cannot even keep up any more.
>>It says the pace of technological development is accelerating at such a rate ...<<
In fact, maybe the most accurate Sci-Fi futurist movie really IS Zardoz.
Stand-off weapons have been the goal of warriors for thousands of years. With stand-off you have the ability to strike the enemy and he can't strike back. I imagine you agree, as when we go to war we don't want a fair fight. We want to win.
Throwing rocks instead of using fists, using a crossbow instead of throwing rocks, shooting rifles instead of a bow and arrow, dropping bombs from a manned fighter above 15,000’ rather than flying low where rifle-fire can hit you, etc. . .these are all examples of stand-off.
All who agree with the premise that you don't bring a knife to a gun-fight agree in principle with the use of stand—off, and UAV’s provide stand-off, nothing more, nothing less.
Of course, if we don't want stand off, we should insist upon a fair fight, you know, throw our men into close-combat evenly matched with the same weapons of the enemy. That way stand-off does not give us an edge.
UAV’s are not killer drones, they are manned and flown by men, thinking men of honor (US military men). UAVs are not some sort of uncontrolled robot shark roaming the skies looking to kill. They are part of an arsenal of weapons we can use to meet evolving threats.
Development of UAV’s should not be feared because some politician, someplace, somewhere, sometime, might abuse them.
Let us not fear technology and the advancement of weapons. Let us control its development and use so that we are prepared when the enemy fields that capability a) we can combat it, and b) we don't put our own men at risk.
A robot has been created that shoots arrows with increasing accuracy. I imagine that robots capable of pulling triggers with increasing accuracy are not far behind.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2599006/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.