3 ms·

But what if the US military wants to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage as much as possible and wants technology developed to do so?

wavefunction 8y ago
We don't know that Google will accomplish those goals.
- jonnybgood 8y ago
  Well I think that's what the Air Force wants to find out.
SiempreViernes 8y ago
The obvious way to reach the goal of minimize civilian casualities is to abstain from risky strikes and use smaller yield weapons. The us military wants technology that justifies them not making more conservative choices, and I don’t see any moral justification for that. Drones are useful for cheaply eliminating risk to one actor, thus allowing more risky behaviour to the side that has them. But being a cheap risk mitigator is also all they are, they bring no new strategic capability, as evidenced by how easily their use was ramped up and down, so their main effect, the one that could provide some moral justification, is making war cheaper.
randcraw 8y ago
Unfortunately I'm not aware that minimization of civilian casualties is a US military objective. Until I hear that it is, I will assume it is not, since it's much easier to achieve your mission of killing bad guys if you're also willing to kill good guys. You get more rewards for killing more bad guys, not saving more good guys. Unfortunately that's how militaries and governments work.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  Unfortunately I'm not aware that minimization of civilian casualties is a US military objective. Not to put too fine of a point on it but even a basic search on the topic would yield a ton of official policy doing exactly that. There is explicit guidance and long history of minimizing civilian casualties as a goal within the DoD, and such guidance is codified in multiple legal documents under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Rules of Engagement and international treaties. To wit: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/01/executive-order-united-states-policy-pre-and-post-strike-measures https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/0... https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/attp/attp3-37-31.pdf https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/... This is also taught as a basic tenet in introductory courses for new Military Officers. One example here: https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B130936%20Law%20of%20War%20and%20Rules%20Of%20Engagement.pdf https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B130936...
  - randcraw 8y ago
    A large set of such references are to be expected, of course. When a civilized people undertake killing on a large scale, you don't want others to think you act without justification. So you write serious administrative documents claiming your government actions to be justified and your military claims to minimize collateral damage. But are such claims really true? Does the part of the military chain of command that actually does the killing take those claims to heart, as much as pentagon spokesmen do? Do the superiors of lieutenants and privates hold them to that standard, even when the laws of conduct become unenforceable by collateral victims, as in drone strikes? In several US wars, such claim were not taken to heart. Vietnam became infamous in US history as lacking a sound casus belli, just as the 2003 Iraq War has. In messy wars like these, one of the principal casualties is often the enforcement of the rules of war, especially when it comes to laws of conduct that are still in the course of being written, such as the proper use of drones or AI. This lack of enforcement becomes especially fraught when novel weaponry and its use is governed not by the military under its code of conduct, but by the CIA (who now runs most drone snipery), which AFAIK lacks an equivalent martial code of conduct.
    - 8y ago

wavefunction 8y ago

We don't know that Google will accomplish those goals.

jonnybgood 8y ago
Well I think that's what the Air Force wants to find out.

SiempreViernes 8y ago

The obvious way to reach the goal of minimize civilian casualities is to abstain from risky strikes and use smaller yield weapons. The us military wants technology that justifies them not making more conservative choices, and I don’t see any moral justification for that. Drones are useful for cheaply eliminating risk to one actor, thus allowing more risky behaviour to the side that has them. But being a cheap risk mitigator is also all they are, they bring no new strategic capability, as evidenced by how easily their use was ramped up and down, so their main effect, the one that could provide some moral justification, is making war cheaper.

randcraw 8y ago

Unfortunately I'm not aware that minimization of civilian casualties is a US military objective. Until I hear that it is, I will assume it is not, since it's much easier to achieve your mission of killing bad guys if you're also willing to kill good guys. You get more rewards for killing more bad guys, not saving more good guys. Unfortunately that's how militaries and governments work.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Unfortunately I'm not aware that minimization of civilian casualties is a US military objective. Not to put too fine of a point on it but even a basic search on the topic would yield a ton of official policy doing exactly that. There is explicit guidance and long history of minimizing civilian casualties as a goal within the DoD, and such guidance is codified in multiple legal documents under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Rules of Engagement and international treaties. To wit: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/01/executive-order-united-states-policy-pre-and-post-strike-measures https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/0... https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/attp/attp3-37-31.pdf https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/... This is also taught as a basic tenet in introductory courses for new Military Officers. One example here: https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B130936%20Law%20of%20War%20and%20Rules%20Of%20Engagement.pdf https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B130936...
- randcraw 8y ago
  A large set of such references are to be expected, of course. When a civilized people undertake killing on a large scale, you don't want others to think you act without justification. So you write serious administrative documents claiming your government actions to be justified and your military claims to minimize collateral damage. But are such claims really true? Does the part of the military chain of command that actually does the killing take those claims to heart, as much as pentagon spokesmen do? Do the superiors of lieutenants and privates hold them to that standard, even when the laws of conduct become unenforceable by collateral victims, as in drone strikes? In several US wars, such claim were not taken to heart. Vietnam became infamous in US history as lacking a sound casus belli, just as the 2003 Iraq War has. In messy wars like these, one of the principal casualties is often the enforcement of the rules of war, especially when it comes to laws of conduct that are still in the course of being written, such as the proper use of drones or AI. This lack of enforcement becomes especially fraught when novel weaponry and its use is governed not by the military under its code of conduct, but by the CIA (who now runs most drone snipery), which AFAIK lacks an equivalent martial code of conduct.
  - 8y ago