I found this article that talks about the ethics of robot soldiers. I think robot soldiers are inevitable. The way technology is advancing and the constant increase in people's reliance on technology; soon we will be looking at technology to fight our wars. One of the biggest questions this poses is how can we allow technology to take someone's life. I don't know that we are not already doing that. Think about homing missiles and how they find their target in order to explode. Yes, we do choose the target for the missile, but it is still up to the missile to get the job done. Also, like with any soldier, the robot soldiers will need orders from someone. Those orders are what will determine what the robot does or who he kills. So, technically it is not really the technology that makes the decision it is still us humans. In the article it says that the robots would have the decision making power, however, regular soldiers also have decision making powers. If the technology that goes into making the robots is meant to act the same as how soldiers are meant to act, then the robots will still have to have orders to follow in order to complete their tasks. Also the likelihood of other nations also developing technological warfare instruments is very high. This makes me think that it will most likely be robots against robots, which may be better for humanity. This way people do not have to get hurt for any governmental issues with other countries. I personally think it is a non issue. I like the idea of robot soldiers, with humans controlling them of course.
Anybody have any other ideas?
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/04/law-and-ethics-for-robot-soldiers/
Anybody have any other ideas?
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/04/law-and-ethics-for-robot-soldiers/
1 comment:
I think one area that is neither addressed by you nor the article is an actual analysis of what war is, and what it stands for.
I agree that robotics and robot soldiers is very likely a realistic solution in the near future but does it perform the same purpose as true human soldiers?
First, understand why countries go to war and what their reasons for it are - then understand what countries attempt to do during war?
They attempt to inflict as much damage to the opponent as possible in an attempt to either entirely crush the opponent or to scare them into surrender. If that is the case, then how can robots take the place of humans? Sure, as the article says, the robots will work similarly to humans in thought, but if no humans are being injured or captured and there is no real harm being committed to either side, then what is the point of war - to see who can go bankrupt first by making machines?
No - war is fought in an attempt to corner an opponent into realizing that human life outways whatever struggle is being argued by the two sides and to accept a defeat in the name of moral righteousness.
Wars would never end if we let robots fully fight our battles, it would be robot vs robot and there would never be a clear winner if the countries never gave up. How would the Vietnam war have differed if robots fought - would the US have backed out because too many robots were dying? Absolutely not!
Post a Comment