3 ms·

I don't see 'autonomous' weapons as being developed by the US military as ever being banned under international law. Let us examine weapons that have been banne

I don't see 'autonomous' weapons as being developed by the US military as ever being banned under international law. Let us examine weapons that have been banned. Chemical and biological weapons were banned under international law because they aren't all that much more effective than conventional weapons yet cause an undue amount of suffering in comparison. You get no benefits, only downsides. The other example, anti-personnel mines, is more instructive. International law bans them because historically, belligerents who have employed them for area denial purposes never stick around and de-mine the area after the conflict is over, leaving the civilian population to suffer. The United States refuses to sign a blanket ban on landmines, as her position is that her landmines are different, they self-destruct after a set period of time, therefore they don't threaten civilians long after the war is over. There are two takeaways here. First, weapons are not banned before they are tested in a conflict. Second, effectiveness trumps morals, if a weapon of war is effective, that can tip it's acceptability status even in the face of "collateral" damage. This is the case with nuclear weaponry, which imposes costs on civilians but is considered worth it for their sheer power to end a conflict in minutes. This is, after all, the entire premise upon which war is waged, for the good of the many over the few who are harmed. AI controlled weapons, unless they're left in a battlefield for civilians to contend with, something that appears fairly unlikely, at least at the moment, does not change this basic equation.

skybrian 9y ago
Calling this an "equation" seems overly fatalistic, as if it were inevitable. I'm pessimistic about this as well, but there certainly are attempts to prevent nuclear weapons from spreading, and efforts to reduce the arsenals of countries that have them. These attempts often don't work, but they do matter because sometimes they do.
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  People that I know in the military wish strong states with strong weaponry to act as a deterrent to conflict. They trust in the professionalism of other states' armed forces and the diplomatic process, which evolved over centuries of war to prevent accidents and human failings. This was greatly tested during the Cold War and the policies and procedures held conflicts down to a relative minimum, the unfortunate proxy war in Vietnam aside. Once it became clear to planners that MAD wasn't a real scenario and that the most effective strategy for nuclear weaponry involves smaller, more numerous weapons, targeted at enemy military installations, focus shifted on ensuring that enough weapons are available to fully end a conflict. Disarmament agreements unfortunately ensure that there is strategic space for a nuclear exchange to not fully end a conflict. This raises the probabilities of major conflict rather than reduces them. Great in theory, not in practice.

skybrian 9y ago

Calling this an "equation" seems overly fatalistic, as if it were inevitable. I'm pessimistic about this as well, but there certainly are attempts to prevent nuclear weapons from spreading, and efforts to reduce the arsenals of countries that have them. These attempts often don't work, but they do matter because sometimes they do.

vinceguidry 9y ago
People that I know in the military wish strong states with strong weaponry to act as a deterrent to conflict. They trust in the professionalism of other states' armed forces and the diplomatic process, which evolved over centuries of war to prevent accidents and human failings. This was greatly tested during the Cold War and the policies and procedures held conflicts down to a relative minimum, the unfortunate proxy war in Vietnam aside. Once it became clear to planners that MAD wasn't a real scenario and that the most effective strategy for nuclear weaponry involves smaller, more numerous weapons, targeted at enemy military installations, focus shifted on ensuring that enough weapons are available to fully end a conflict. Disarmament agreements unfortunately ensure that there is strategic space for a nuclear exchange to not fully end a conflict. This raises the probabilities of major conflict rather than reduces them. Great in theory, not in practice.