3 ms·
Sure, but we do have all sorts of laws and restrictions on chemical weapons (which you could plausibly make by pouring some of the cleaning products in your hou
by michaelbuckbee 8y ago
Sure, but we do have all sorts of laws and restrictions on chemical weapons (which you could plausibly make by pouring some of the cleaning products in your house together).
The ban isn't a flip-switch that says: "hey, no more of these", it's the start of a formal dialogue over our relationship to these new technologies and how we would like to see them used on a worldwide basis.
If a country were to opt to drop thousands of flying drones with guns onto a military base is that different than chemical weapons? a fuel air bomb? conventional explosives? sending special forces in?
Yeah, they're all different with different repercussions, long term impacts, potential civilian casualties, etc. etc.
- bilbo0s 8y agoChemical, and especially biological, weapons are an order of magnitude more difficult to manufacture correctly, (ie-without killing yourself), than autonomous drones. The thought that autonomous groups like ISIS would not use autonomous drone swarms because such a terrorist attack would "break international law" really is so far beyond "fanciful" that it ventures into "humorous" territory. I think we can pretty much count on every group with a gripe reaching for autonomous drone swarms first in the future.
- kazagistar 8y agoSure, but if they can only be developed by parties who don't care for international law, they will be weaker and less effective, then they might otherwise be, and we can focus legal development efforts on countermeasures.