Image : http://www.flickr.com
In the future robotic warfare may require a human in the loop as a decision maker before lethal force is used. Some how we are to value human decision making over that of a robot? This means that a human would make the final decision to kill.
Should this be a rule that humans must add to the Geneva Convention? It appears that war treaties are rarely followed and the Geneva Conventions maybe followed at the on-set yet as a nation-state builds on its Nationalism thru religion and has labeled the enemy unfit to lead or live then they rationalize the breaking of the rules. Some say this is merely a survival mechanism since in “True War” are there any rules at all? Kill or be killed is often the only thought process that is working as the battles thicken and the stakes become higher.
If one side breaks the Geneva Convention in one area then is the other side justified in casting aside all the rules. As the reciprocal responses escalate can we really expect any such rules over robotic warfare and robots engaging humans on their own accord to be meaningful? After all one can easily argue that a human programmed the machine in the first place and therefore it is still a hand tool of war.
Does a Bomber Pilot really know where the dumb bombs will land? Does Hezbollah as it sends 2,000 rockets into Israel knowing they will be hitting innocent civilians really care? Will such rules whether sponsored by the UN, NATO or agreed upon in advance by all nations amount to anything worthy? And to that point in the heat of battle when one side is over powered, will they not pull out all the stops? Currently there are all sorts of rules on Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons, yet it seems these are often in the arsenals of all Nation’s Military today.
“Lance Winslow” – Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.
